Assault Weapons Selling Briskly (Fort Worth TX)

[struggle4progress]

FORT WORTH, Texas -- The federal ban on assault weapons expired Monday, and hours after the expiration, some stores began selling the weapons.

Local businesses reported a sales boom after the ban, enacted in 1994, was lifted. Owners of one Fort Worth store said sales were brisk and their telephone rang consistently with inquiries about availability of the weapons.

The ban's expiration makes the purchase of the weapons legal for the public. The ban previously restricted ownership to military personnel and law enforcement officers.

According to a poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, 78 percent of respondents favored an extension of the ban.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3727346/detail.html

[FeebMaster]

1. I'm surprised it took hours before they started selling them.

If I owned a gun store I would have had a midnight sale.

According to a poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, 78 percent of respondents favored an extension of the ban.

Must be the other 22% buying all the new Assault Weapons.

[derby378]

71. The gun-store owners...

...were probably pinching themselves and saying, "Is this just a dream? Did the ATF give the green-light? Can we take down the 'Law Enforcement Only' sign over the Springfield display now?"

[Rose Siding]

2. That's one way to jump start an anemic economy

[truthisfreedom]

3. i heard a very disturbing news piece on NPR today, where they said that

in the two weeks prior to the 10 year ban going into effect, gun shops sold more of these assault rifles than they would have expected to ever sell during the 10 years following.

basically, the story said this: if there hadn't been a ban, fewer assault rifles would be on the street now. since all of this attention has been drawn to the assault rifles, they are selling much much faster than they ever would have anyway.

what is with people?

[FeebMaster]

4. That's likely an exaggeration

but certainly the ban caused a lot of people to run out and buy them so they'd have a grandfathered pre-ban weapon. On top of that, the ban woke a lot of other people up on the gun issue, then they went out and bought a bunch of post-ban weapons. Certainly far more post-ban weapons were sold because of the ban than assault weapons would have been sold without the ban.


what is with people?

Some people don't like authoritarian laws telling them what they can and can't own or do.

[drdtroit]

9. "Some people don't like authoritarian laws ...

... telling them what they can and can't own or do."

Dig it, those nasty laws keep me from buying that beautiful Apache helicopter I've had my eye on.

[FeebMaster]

11. What law prevents you from buying an Apache helicopter? (nt)

[jmowreader]

123. An Apache is classified

So is the Stinger missile and most other weapons of mass destruction. IIRC the Apache is classified Confidential.

There are three basic classifications--Confidential, Secret and Top Secret.

Confidential - capable of causing damage to the national security
Secret - capable of causing serious damage to the national security
Top Secret - capable of causing exceptionally grave damage to the national security

//edited to remove certain anti-Republican fantasies involving Apaches and one of our favorite lawmakers//

They might be able to sell you one, once they stripped all the sensitive technology off it. Off come the weapon systems, the terrain-avoidance gear, the communications equipment. You are left with a two-seat stripper airframe that costs $15 million. For that you can buy three really nice civil helis, perhaps an Aerospatiale Dauphin, a Sikorsky S-76 and maybe something from Bell.

[FeebMaster]

125. That has nothing to do with it being illegal

and that was the whole point.

The weapon systems wouldn't technically be illegal either. You wouldn't be able to register the cannon, though, since it's a machine gun and Reagan put a stop to that back in '86.

[eriffle]

12. not an apache, but

it's a start
fighter jet on ebay

[yardwork]

48. And I can't grow a field of opium poppies

even though I'm a plant enthusiast!

And a lot of the same folks who don't want to deny anyone their right to own an assault rifle to kill people want to make it illegal for women to have abortions.

[lastliberalintexas]

68. Yes, but

I *do* want you to be able to plant those poppies, just as I want someone to be able to buy a gun if they so choose. It's the same issue as far as I'm concerned- why would you want to give the gov't that much authority over you? I certainly don't. The gov't only has the authority to limit my actions insofar as they impinge on the rights of another- so that the gov't would have a legitimate right to prevent me from driving after ingesting some of your poppies, and from shooting a gun within the city limits, etc.


But then, I've never heard anyone say that they want people to be able to own an assault rifle "to kill people." Most people I know who oppose gun ownership/possession restrictions understand that there is a difference between the possession of a weapon and the gov't's right to regulate the USE of that weapon. :shrug:

[Bandit]

75. How about explosives??? should I be allowed to buy as much

as I want and blow stuff up. :shrug: there may be a building I don't like or an airplane ...who knows?

[Radius]

83. Actually

In some states you can buy demo with a drivers lisc.

Just dont poke your eye out..

[lastliberalintexas]

109. That's disingenuous

"and blow stuff up"

Did you read where I said that the gov't has a legitimate reason to regulate the USE of the weapon? Or is it just more fun to throw out non sequiturs?

[Bandit]

117. There are laws against the use of guns in a crime

There are also laws against the use of explosives in a crime, however there is also a law against possessing explosives just as there is about possessing a machinegun or a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches. They have been making possession of certain weapons illegal for quite some time now and IMHO have had good reason for doing so. You seem to believe we should start criminalizing intentions and not equipment. I disagree. Why make them available when there is no legitimate usage for such weapons. Should terrorist have access to assault weapons or explosives? I would like to think not but America seems to be a gun crazy society so I guess anything goes. If we follow your logic every country that wants should have Nukes as well. The crime should only be when they are used. :crazy:

[lastliberalintexas]

120. I said no such thing

"You seem to believe we should start criminalizing intentions and not equipment."

No, I want the ACT to be criminalized, not the intention OR the equipment. The equipment in and of itself is meaningless. Whether one commits a pre-meditated murder with a letter opener or an AK-47 has historically been meaningless in our system of criminal justice. It is still a (usually) first degree murder, punishable by death or life in prison.

"Why make them available when there is no legitimate usage for such weapons."

That's not the issue. In our system, our gov't has to have a reason (and a darn good one at that) for TAKING AWAY one of my rights. I don't need a reason for wanting to keep it. But maybe in modern America, that concept has died a sad and quiet death.

"Should terrorist have access to assault weapons or explosives?"

Yes, because with stricter gun control laws in America, we know that terrorists will be prevented from obtaining weaponry. :eyes:

Your argument there also buys into the repub spin on recent events- that we must forfeit some of our freedoms so that the terrorists don't "win". I assume then that you also think the Patriot Act is wonderful and should be expanded, since its aim is to prevent terrorists from carrying out successful attacks- despite the fact that a few "meaningless" freedoms must be forfeited in exchange. That is the same thing as what you are arguing, whether you see it as such or not. But I'd rather side with Franklin when discussing whether freedoms should be exchanged for so-called security.



I've always been amazed when discussing gun control issues with fellow liberals who seem to want to take the Federalist stance of distrusting the populace. I'd rather distrust the gov't than the citizenry.

[Anaxamander]

112. That's not true

The gov't only has the authority to limit my actions insofar as they impinge on the rights of another

I wish that were true, but it's really not. The truth is, there are laws to protect people against themselves (seat belts, motorcycle helmets).

[lastliberalintexas]

121. So-called nanny laws

I didn't say that they don't exist- just that they aren't really legitimate exercises of gov'tal authority over the citizenry. :-)

[Cha]

88. And if I still smoked pot ...they would gladly

take away my weed!:smoke:

[slackmaster]

110. Actually you CAN grow a field of opium poppies

You just can't "cultivate" them or extract opium from them.

It's not illegal to have poppies growing in your garden.

[Lindacooks]

29. Oh, for pete's sake

All laws tell citizens 'what they can and can't own and do'. That's the definition of a law!

Anybody who 'needs' an assault weapon has some serious character and personality problems. Guess what? A gun won't get rid of your pot belly, it won't make your 'manhood' bigger, it won't make you more attractive to women, and it won't put hair on your head. Grow up.

[FeebMaster]

32. I'll say.

All laws tell citizens 'what they can and can't own and do'. That's the definition of a law!


If you can't see the difference between a law that says "you can't murder people" and "you can't build a rifle with a bayonet lug" or "you can't own a red car" or "you can't smoke that plant," well I guess you wouldn't understand.


Anybody who 'needs' an assault weapon has some serious character and personality problems.

Supporters of the AWB never did have much to offer to the discussion beyond blatant ad homs and penis references.


Guess what? A gun won't get rid of your pot belly

No kidding.


it won't make your 'manhood' bigger

See what I mean about the penis references?


it won't make you more attractive to women and it won't put hair on your head

That's a shame.


Grow up.

Hey, I'm not the one getting upset and making random penis references because the AWB is dead.

[Geo55]

38. But...will provide the "dillusion" of all these n/t

[Anaxamander]

114. Oh please

There's no need to resort to tired, clichéd personal attacks. Stereotyping gun enthusiasts as balding, unattractive men is a nice way of avoiding real debate on the issue.

[chelaque liberal]

85. Aren't all laws authoritarian?

[FeebMaster]

86. Some more than others

I guess.

[napi21]

5. It's human nature! Something can sit in the open for a long time,

but tell people they can't have it, and just watch it sell!

This begins at a very early age, and never ends!

Put a small unatractive box on a table, and your little kids will probably ignore it. Tell them "I have to go to the kitchen for a few minutes, but don't open that box!" What do you think will happen!

People age, but in some ways, they never really grow up.

[DoNotRefill]

53. the quickest way to get somebody to want something...

is to tell them they can't have it.

Works for kids. Works for adults, too.

[struggle4progress]

74. Yeah! Dynamite in my garage! Weaponized anthrax in my freezer! Tigers ...

... chained in my back yard! What a life!

[slackmaster]

60. I believe the NPR piece was right about that

The number of manufacturers, models, and accessories available for semiautomatic firearms is far greater today than it was in 1994. It's normal for people to be drawn that that which seems forbidden. The AW ban failed for the same reason alcohol prohibition failed in the US - Neither did anything to reduce demand for those products, and in at least some people it had the opposite effect. I must confess I have bought a few guns and magazines specifically because they were going to be banned. Maybe that kind of reactive behavior puts me in a minority, but I know I'm not alone.

...basically, the story said this: if there hadn't been a ban, fewer assault rifles (sic) would be on the street now. since all of this attention has been drawn to the assault rifles, they are selling much much faster than they ever would have anyway.

Substitute "lawn darts" or "Havana cigars" for "assault rifles" and the statement would still be true.

Here's a set being offered by someone in the Great White North:



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30&item=5921153259&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

[-..__...]

6. Fort Worth, huh?

I might have to make a road trip. :evilgrin:

[mediaman007]

7. I think that we should all buy one...

when the DUer's arm themselves, the Freepers will start calling for new gun laws!

[Indie Media Magazine]

8. I want one! I want one!

[slackmaster]

10. Technically they are no longer assault weapons

The term has no meaning in federal or Texas state law.

[Mr_Spock]

13. I wonder if my order for 1000 Uzi's has been filled yet?

I hope so - hehe.

[MGKrebs]

14. So let me get this straight...

Since terrorists can do their dirty work with box cutters, there is no longer any reason to prevent them from acquiring Uzi's? Is that the argument?

[FeebMaster]

16. No. That isn't the argument. (nt)

[sendero]

17. A simpler argument is...

... that making something illegal has little if any effect on its availability. Take pot for example.

The things people get their dipes in a twist about I'll never understand.

[makah]

93. Uzis

I guess you could make that argument.
I don't think any self respecting terrorist would be caught dead
with a firearm made in Israel. Why would a terrorist limit their fire power to an assault rifle, when a full auto would be much more lethal.

[Ms. Clio]

15. So what happens when some nutcase shoots up a school,

or goes postal in his workplace, with one of these things?

Every day, in every way, "America is safer."

[BiggJawn]

19. Please explain the logic behind your statement...

No, i'm not "razzing" you, I just want to hear from somebody who's more "rational" about this than me:

Why the ability to now legally purchase the SAME DAMN THING you could buy last Friday, only now you can get it with a bayonet lug and folding stock, will entice "some nutcase" to go shoot up a school?

You see, I don't understand it. Last week I might have had a gun that looked like a chinese SKS carbine, but it had a 10-round magazine and no bayonet. This week, I might have one with a bayonet and a 30-round magazine. How does that make me want to go shoot up my workplace or a school?

Because that's what some lobbying group told you?

It defies logic, if you look at it unemotionally.

[trueblew]

22. Um

I think the point is, if some loser decides to shoot up a school or McDonald's, it just got a hell of a lot easier to kill a lot more humans.

[NickB79]

25. How so?

What features that were covered in the AWB, but are now legal, make it easier to kill a lot more people?

[SidDithers]

37. Ok, I'll give it a try...

Folding stock, makes it easier to conceal the weapon, and take it places it wasn't as easily taken before

Larger capacity magazines, more bullets = easier to kill more people?

Seems pretty straighforward to me.

Sid

[NickB79]

51. Not so straightforward

Even with a folding stock, a long gun must be a minimum of 26" in length, with a barrel a minimum of 16" (rifle) to 18" (shotgun) in length. Anything less is still illegal. Try concealing a 2.5-3 ft long piece of equipment that weights 5-10 lbs without anyone noticing; it is much more difficult than one would think. Besides all this, there were many, many guns with folding stocks that were grandfathered in 1994 and have always been legal to own and sell since then. My best friend's father has an AK with a folding stock and 30-rd magazine that is and always has been perfectly legal to own.

Larger capacity magazines have been easily available, even after the AWB was passed. Up until yesterday, you could find 20, 30, and 40-rd magazines for AK's and AR-15's, still in their original wrappers, online and at gun stores and gun shows. I've seen quality mags selling for as little as $15 each. MILLIONS of them were already in circulation when the ban went into effect in 1994, and they were all grandfathered in. They are perfectly legal to own, sell and use even under the laws of the AWB. The only thing that's changed is that we can now buy new high capacity magazines to compliment the older ones, even though there was no shortage of the older ones under the AWB. If we haven't seen

[DoNotRefill]

55. OK...

folding stock: Most criminals prefer handguns for exactly this reason: concealability. Of course, you may not have realized that the federally mandated barrel length (16 inches for rifles) and overall length (28 inches for rifles) remain identical pre and post ban. So yeah, you can put a collapsable stock on it, but it can only collapse so that the rifle is 28 inches in OAL, but at the same time, a straight stock only has to be long enough for it to be 28 inches OAL too. So it doesn't MATTER if it has a collapsable stock or not, the Federally mandated length requirements remain unchanged.

Larger capacity magazines: two points. First, "pre-ban" (this means high capacity magazines made prior to September 13, 1994) magazines were still both legal and importable under the ban. There are billions (literally, BILLIONS) of pre-1994 manufacture magazines floating around the world, and it's not like milk products, they don't have an expiration date. For example, I have some magazines for a gun that I own that date back literally to the 1920s. They still work just fine. so a criminal could have still gotten pre-ban magazines while the ban was in place, it just would have cost a few dollars more. Secondly, let's say that all pre-ban high capacity magazines disappeared: >POOF!< What result? Well, first of all, how often do shootings happen where more than 10 rounds are fired? They're pretty rare. Secondly, instead of shooting 13, 15, 17,or even 30 rounds, the person can only shoot 10 rounds until he or she has to reload. With me so far? How long does it take to reload? You push the mag release which drops the mag, get your next mag, insert it, and release the slide. (of course, if the person can count to ten, they know when they're about empty, so they can drop the mag and insert a new one with a round still chambered, which means that it takes even less time) It takes a fraction of the amount of time to do that it took me to describe it. So what result? The shooter has to pause for half a second to a second to reload, which buys the next victims that much time before they get shot (after all, if running away was a possibility, they'd have done it during the time s/he was firing the other 9 rounds, right?) So where's the gain? You gained the people a fraction of a second of life, but they're still gonna die, because s/he just slapped in another magazine.

In short, the ban was an exercise in absolute futility, unless you consider preventing the proverbial "random drive-by bayonetings", which for some unknown reason were not much of a problem before 1994. Was it worth the 20 seats in the House that it cost us? HELL NO. And it wasn't worth a single goddamned seat in this election, either.

There are 80-100 million legal gun owners in the US. ALL of them are eligible to vote. Pissing off a large segment of them is a really good way to GUARANTEE that you remain a minority party in perpetuity. Good riddance to a bad and expensive law.

[BlueCollar]

61. Bravo...

"...In short, the ban was an exercise in absolute futility, unless you consider preventing the proverbial "random drive-by bayonetings", which for some unknown reason were not much of a problem before 1994. Was it worth the 20 seats in the House that it cost us? HELL NO. And it wasn't worth a single goddamned seat in this election, either.

There are 80-100 million legal gun owners in the US. ALL of them are eligible to vote. Pissing off a large segment of them is a really good way to GUARANTEE that you remain a minority party in perpetuity. Good riddance to a bad and expensive law..."

Do Not Refill hit the nail on the head

[thecrow]

64. For one, now you can spray 300 bullets per minute

[NickB79]

79. If you can pull a trigger 300 times in one minute

IE 5 times per second, you have my lasting admiration. That would be a feat for Guiness Records to record.

For the umpteenth time, THE AWB HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MACHINEGUNS!!! Fully automatic weapons (the ones that fire as long as you hold the trigger back, such as those that fire 300-600 rounds per minute) have been HIGHLY regulated by the federal government since 1934. The 1994 AWB ONLY covered semi-automatic firearms, which only fire ONE bullet each time the trigger is pulled.

So, can ANYONE tell me how these rifles are more dangerous now than a few days ago?

[FatSlob]

91. Only Jerry Miculek could do it...heck maybe not even him.

[slackmaster]

111. If you can do that now you could do that before the ban expired

The AW ban had nothing to do with machineguns.

Assault weapons were by definition semiautomatic.

There was no difference between the rate of fire of a banned AW and a ban-compliant "post-ban" firearm: One round per trigger pull.

[Anaxamander]

116. I think people don't understand what the AWB even is

People think that machine guns that were safely off the streets last week are going to be in vending machines this week.

Please, everyone who supports the AWB listen: I am not a gun freak (I don't even own one), but you MUST know that the AWB has nothing to do with machine guns! Those were outlawed in the 1930s. Every gun we're discussing related to the AWB is semi-auto, which doesn't mean "spraying" bullets while holding down the trigger! You do your side a real disservice when you confuse this very simple fact.

[Ms. Clio]

23. I didn't say it would "entice" anyone to do that

I'm just remembering Columbine, and all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about "the children, the children."

Whatever happens, I'm sure it will somehow be the "libruls'" fault, and probably the Clintons', too.

(That's not directed at you--just doing a little freelance prophesying).

[FeebMaster]

26. Are you aware that Columbine occurred while the AWB was in effect? (nt)

[Ms. Clio]

27. Yeah, but that really wasn't my point n/t

[FeebMaster]

28. What was your point? (nt)

[Ms. Clio]

30. Let me ask you--why does anyone not a cop or a soldier, need one of these?

I just don't get it.

[Jack_DeLeon]

35. self defense, target shooting, collection purposes...

that being said a person does not need any reason to exercise thier rights.

[Ms. Clio]

41. Well, that at least is an answer

And one reason I do not frequent the Gungeon is because I do not have any interest in debating the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

[toopers]

103. Of course, you understand that this is not just about the 2nd amendment?

If you start letting the government take away individual rights based on need, then why would they necessarily stop with assault weapons?

[FeebMaster]

36. Nice attempt at a diversion.

The standard ploy of the AWB supporter. If asked a direct question demand the questioner justify the need for assault weapons.

"Let me ask you--why does anyone not a cop or a soldier, need one of these?"

Why would a soldier need an assault weapon when the army issues its soldiers machine guns?


I just don't get it.

Right, you were saying something about schools and workplaces being shot up with assault weapons? I believe Columbine was mentioned.

[Ms. Clio]

40. I asked a simple question--I can see I will have to look elsewhere

for an answer.

[FeebMaster]

42. You too?

[DoNotRefill]

65. Because...

sometimes breaking out the other gun (you know, the thirty-pound legally-owned real-live fully-automatic belt-fed machinegun that shoots 900 rounds a minute using a much larger round and is perfect for knocking down low-flying helicopters and aircraft) is overkill? (well, you asked...)

In other words, it's not always important to use the biggest and best gun you have. Options are nice.

BTW, I like the bayonet mount not for mounting a bayonet, but because I can use it to mount a quick-detach bipod or flashlight without making modifications to the gun.

[lastliberalintexas]

69. Because they want it?

Just like some people want pot. Simple enough reason for me.

Nice sidestep there, though.

[Ms. Clio]

78. Yeah, but I can't kill anyone with a joint

So I don't think that's a very good analogy.

And good lord, there's lots of things people want that they can't have, specifically because those wants conflict with the rights, comfort, security, or lives of other people.

[toopers]

104. What about a car?

Anyone that can afford one can buy a car. Hell, you don't even have to have a license, and new car dealerships don't even do background checks beyond your ability to finance the purchase. There is a lot more danger on our roads than behind the stock of an automatic weapon.

[struggle4progress]

73. Fishing! It's much more relaxing to shoot fish with semiautomatic! eom

[Sterling]

43. I think it failed because it was meant to fail.

It had no teeth and really banned nothing.

[slackmaster]

59. This may be one of the more insightful posts on the topic yet

I think Sterling is absolutely right. Our leaders who supposedly supported the ban did nothing during its 10-year duration to gather information to justify its continuance, nor did they make any serious attempt to get "stronger" gun control legislation passed.

The deficiencies of the AWB became obvious within two weeks of it taking effect: Colt changed the AR-15 to the "Sporter" model by replacing the threaded muzzle with a plain one and deleting the bayonet mount. Olympic Arms did the same thing to their AR clone and called it the PCR for Politically Correct Rifle. Where was the outrage at the time? Why did ban supporters wait until the last six months before they started weeping and wailing about its demise?

Like most laws, the AWB was passed for mainly political reasons rather than a genuine concern for crime prevention. Both the left and the right have tried to use it as a wedge issue by demonizing each other over it. Why should we be concerned about an ineffective gun law when over half of the teenagers and young adults in Los Angeles can't read or write well enough to fill out a simple job application? The AWB is a false issue. The ban died as it was designed to do - It's called compromise. One side gets appeased by passing the law, the other side gets appeased by taking the restrictions away.

[BiggJawn]

39. You're right, you didn't say "entice", I did.

you said "What happens when some nutcase shoots up a school..."
MY question was why would they be more inclined to do that NOW, and not in the previous 10 years?

I ask for an explanation with some LOGIC behind it, and I get "Columbine"....

Please don't invoke Columbine. Next to the attempted hit on Ray-Gun, that event is used most to try and get "people of Reason" to go along with efforts to disarm the populace.

That and a mis-interpretation of the Constitution. Look, split hairs about the meaning of the word "Militia" all you want, but if the Founding Fathers had intended for firearms to be posessed ONLY by adult males serving in the "Militia", they would have SAID "Only adult males serving in the seperate state's Militias.

They did not say that. They said "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..."

You're right, though. SOMEBODY will blame this on the Mighty Clenis....

[Ms. Clio]

44. But again, I feel you are reading way more into my post than I intended

I never said they would be more inclined, either. I merely inquired, "What happens when...?" I don't think this implies a specific time frame of any sort--maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe never (although that seems historically unlikely).

[BiggJawn]

45. So basicially, it was an emotional ejaculation?

OK, that's cool. I do it too, a lot...

[Ms. Clio]

46. I usually save my emotional ejaculations for things that really upset me

Like dead Iraqi children.

This was more of a rhetorical question, I think.

[makah]

98. Or

Dead Russian Children?

[Jack_DeLeon]

31. Same thing that always happens...

why would things be any different now than they have ever been.

Murder is already illegal.

[makah]

94. Assault rifle

More children are killed every year by power windows in mini-vans than by assault rifles. When the Clinton Gun Ban Sunset on Monday that didn't mean all of a sudden assault rifles were available for purchase, they've always been available for purchase, we been living with assault rifles all along.

.22 cal. handguns kill far more people each year than assault rifles.

I think a lot of people are afraid of assault rifles because of how they look, disinformation about them, they are portrayed as full auto which means you pull the trigger and it fires until you run out of ammo or release you finger. Assault rifles are semi-auto which means you have to pull the trigger each time you fire a bullet.

Anyone sick enough to kill a bunch of people with any kind of gun, is not going to let a gun ban stop them. Criminals will find a way to get them. It will stop the law abiding citizen who chooses to spend their money to have one, get one. What would the purpose of that be?

It would be like out-lawing any car that can go over 65 mph.
I say if some one wants to shell out the money to own a car that can go 150 mph, great! If they get caught speeding, then they have to suffer the consequences.

Assault rifles are like abortions
if you don't want one, don't get one
they are both legal, so don't tell me I can't have one
assault rifle or abortion.

[rman]

105. school shooting: blame video games,

go postal: it's a lone nutcase

[GaryL]

18. Yeppers.

I'm looking for a BFG 4000.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Is SerbuArms up to the 4000?

Last I heard, their latest was the SerbuArms BFG-50

Now here's a guy with a sick sense of humor...scroll down and read the paragraph above the "BFG-50 frequently asked questions" section about his labor source.

http://www.serbu.com/bfg50.htm

[leesa]

20. If Americans weren't such cowards about everything, there would be no

market for these gun-selling thieves. "Merikans are such silly fools. The whole second amendment scare tactic is a con job to make tons of money off your silly asses.

[mconvente]

21. Yeah... war on terrorism my ass

Wasn't it the 9/11 Commission Report that stated that one of Al Qaeda's goals was to try to purchase illegal assault weapons in the US and use them (yes it did say that). But wait, now they aren't illegal... Talk about a flip-flop for Shrub - unbelievable.

[NickB79]

24. Terrorists wanted bayonets?

Since THESE VERY SAME RIFLES have been available the entire 10 yrs of the AWB being in effect, except missing features such as bayonet lugs and flash hiders, why would Al Queda have to wait until the AWB sunsets to acquire these guns? Do they really, really feel the need for bayonets when they perform a terrorist attack? How are these guns more deadly and useful to terrorists now that the AWB has sunset?

[Kenneth ken]

50. How are these guns more deadly and useful to terrorists now that the AWB h

well, with a bayonet lug, once the bullets are gone, they can use it as a stabbing weapon with a bit more range than if they had to hold the bayonet in their hand. :D

I personally don't care much about the AWB either way, since I don't own any guns, though in the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment while metioning a well-regulated militia does not preclude individual ownership of weapons. That based on the overarching idea that the entire bill of rights (amendments 1-10) were designed for more explicitly limiting the role of government over individuals. In essence, the Constitution lays out the form and role of the federal government; the bill of rights is a range of things government is restricted from passing into law.

[DoNotRefill]

56. Dude! that's IT!!!

:tinfoilhat: time!

OK, the reason the Assault weapon ban was good was because it prevented the 9/11 highjackers from being able to put bayonets on their civilian post-ban AK-47s! Now, they knew that bayonets are nifty things. You can cut stuff with them, you can poke things with them, you can do ALL KINDS of dangerous things with them! Now, apparently they were too poor to buy pre-ban AK-47s that could take the bayonet, and they didn't want to go into combat without the ability to cut and poke people, so they decided to just shitcan the AK-47s, and go with boxcutters, because we all know that a rifle with a knife stuck to the end of it is SO much more deadly than a rifle WITHOUT a knife stuck on the end of it, and who'd want to do a highjacking without sharp pointy things?!?!?!

Brilliant!!!

I feel like Vizzini! "Never bet against a Sicilian, when DEATH is on the line!!! Hahaha! Hahaha!" >thud<

/sarcasm

[slackmaster]

33. No, the 9/11 Commission Report says no such thing

The string "assault weapon" occurs nowhere in the text of the public report.

See http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

WARNING! File is about 7.4 MB. The report is 585 pages long in print.

mconvente,

are you thinking of an alleged quote by Osama bin Laden? And why should we believe anything he says, if that is in fact what he said? I don't buy it for a second. International terrorists have the entire international black market in smuggled real military weapons (not expensive US made semiautos) available to them.

[thecrow]

66. It was in Osama's directions

He said "go into countries that have weapons for sale and buy your weapon there."

[slackmaster]

70. Well, considering fully automatic rifles are available in Afghanistan

And Pakistan, and Iran, and every other shithole country on Earth there wouldn't be much point in them going the US to pay inflated prices for semiautos, would it?

[makah]

97. But what about gunshows?

I heard terrorist buy up all the 50 yr old M1 Garands to send back to their country at these gun shows!

[slackmaster]

108. You don't have to go to a gun show to buy a curio or relic rifle

In fact it's still legal here in California for a private individual to sell an M1 to another without a background check, because the rifle is classified as a curio or relic.

In practice that rarely happens. Most purchases of M1 Garands are either from gun dealers or the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I plan to apply for one of those in a few months.

http://www.odcmp.org

[IndianaGreen]

63. Why would terrorists pay premium prices for weapons in the US when...

they can get them for peanuts elsewhere? The argument that Al-Qaeda will now get weapons in the US is as stupid as the politicians that say it, and the gullible public that believes it.

AWB is dead, and good riddance!

[thecrow]

67. Because they would have a hard time concealing one on a plane

And the thing was they were supposed to buy the gun in the country they would be waiting in.

[NickB79]

80. Exactly

Which is why its so damn hard to find drugs in this country, or why we don't have to worry about illegal immigrants slipping across the border.

Oh wait, thats right. The drug dealers can smuggle in MASSIVE amounts of drugs, and 3 MILLION people illegally cross the border every year. If things like this can be done every year, why wouldn't AQ just have their weapons, or similar fully automatic weapons purchased in Central and South America, smuggled in? If they're really smart, they just disassemble them and have the parts shipped up to them from Central America.

[Gregorian]

34. There never was a ban. Just a quick comment.....

I heard a talk on this subject today. The speaker, whom I forget, mentioned that Dianne Feinstein used the passage of the bill for her election, bla bla bla, and in the process the guts of the bill were eliminated. That is, an assault ak47 without certain minor details, such as a bayonette mount, were able to be sold with the 30 bullet clip. Not the 10 bullet clip. And so, like so many things in this country, the bill was a joke.

So AK-47's have been available since the so-called ban. Sort of like no child left behind, unfunded.

[K. F. Gibbons]

47. I'm from Fort Worth

I bet have have several members of my psycho-family buying guns right now. I lover Fort Worth. Its to bad most people only hear about my town when their doing crazy shit like this.

[sffreeways]

49. 78 percent of respondents

Frist was on CNN earlier and when Paula Zhann asked about the large percentage of Americans (62% Gun owners) that wanted the ban extended. The will of the people ? he said " The will of the people expressed through their representatives". She didn't follow up with the will of the representatives in the pocket of the gun lobby ? Too bad. The hubris is breathtaking.

[Bongo Prophet]

52. I live in Fort Worth, and on the bright side...

I haven't heard a bunch of rounds going off tonight.
So, there's some local restraint. The owners are probably still fondling and sniffing, reading the manual...like xmas in September.
"Can i play with it tonight? can I, huh?"
:evilgrin:

Yeehaw.

[DaveSZ]

54. And vice versa

"And a lot of the same folks who don't want to deny anyone their right to own an assault rifle to kill people want to make it illegal for women to have abortions."

[DoNotRefill]

58. Still waiting...

for my street to run red with blood....

[0007]

62. I pray that your State doesn't turn red.

[Renew Deal]

72. I wonder how many murderers and terrorists were buying these things.

[MGKrebs]

76. Uzi. Tec-9 are back.

Was banned, now available:


Was banned, now available:

[NickB79]

81. They were NEVER banned

In fact, the manufacturer of the Tec-9 simply removed the barrel shroud, sold it with 10-rd magazines instead of 30-rd, renamed it and kept pumping them out many yrs after 1994. Should you want a 30-rd magazine, you could go out and purchase one cheaply, because there are many, many of them for sale that were made before 1994 and thus grandfathered in and unaffected. This was perfectly legal under the AWB. Similarly, the Uzi has always been legal to own, sell and use in the US. The only reason they've become harder to find is because they can no longer be imported from Israel. If a US manufacturer felt there was a great enough demand for them, they could have gotten permission from the Israeli manufacturer and built them here in the US throughout the 1990's. Again, perfectly legal under the AWB.

[MGKrebs]

87. Let me get this straight.

Uzi's 'were never banned', they just couldn't be imported.

Oooo kay. Whatever you say. Nooo problemo.

As for the TEC-9, is your position that, since the ban can't be enforced perfectly, it's not worth enforcing at all?


"In 1982, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ruled that the KG-9 (aka TEC-9) was an illegal machine gun, due to the ease with which it could be converted to fully automatic fire.

The company redesigned the KG-9's bolt to make conversion more difficult, and renamed the weapon the KG-99. Otherwise, the design remained essentially unchanged. Intratec confirmed that like its predecessor, the KG-99 could be fairly described as "combining the high capacity and controlled firepower of the military submachinegun with the legal status and light weight of a handgun."


Intratec U.S.A. ("Intratec") manufactured a vertical foregrip for use with the KG-99, which it marketed as an "Assault Grip." Intratec used the term "Assault Grip" in marketing the foregrip, "ecause you basically hold the gun with two hands like you would as assault weapon, a military weapon."


In November 1982, and again in March 1985, the ATF notified Intratec that it was unlawful to possess a KG-99 and an attachable foregrip, even though the pistol and the foregrip were disassembled. Although Intratec understood that they should not be selling the assault grip, he continued to sell it as an accessory for the KG-99, stamping on the order form that "ATF has ruled that the KG-250 assault grip may not be attached legally to the KG-99 or the old model KG-9."

[slackmaster]

113. Intratec's legal problems with its designs has nothing to do with AWB

I hope you realize that 1982 and 1985 were long before the AW ban was enacted.

[NickB79]

122. Yes, Uzis weren't banned under the AWB

As Slackmaster pointed out, they were banned from IMPORT by George Bush Sr. in 1989, not by the AWB (ironic, isn't it, that a Republican president banned importation of guns?). As I said in my first post, there is nothing about their design that would have prevented a US gun manufacturer from building and selling them even during the AWB, either. The only problem was that licensing of the Uzi design was very tightly controlled, and no domestic gun makers could obtain the rights to it. The Uzi is no longer easily available due to a combination of an earlier import ban, and stubborn foreign gun manufacturers, not due to anything stated in the AWB.

As for the Tec-9:

"The company redesigned the KG-9's bolt to make conversion more difficult, and renamed the weapon the KG-99. Otherwise, the design remained essentially unchanged."

Essentially unchanged, except for the fact it now met the BATF's standards and couldn't be converted to full-automatic? I'd say thats a pretty big change.

"Intratec confirmed that like its predecessor, the KG-99 could be fairly described as "combining the high capacity and controlled firepower of the military submachinegun with the legal status and light weight of a handgun.""

They combined the worst features of both submachineguns and handguns in the Tec-9, not the best. It couldn't fire as or be easily converted to full-automatic weapon after the redesign, yet it was bigger and bulkier like an SMG. It offered no significant increase in killing power over a standard handgun because it was still chambered in 9mm, and no ammunition increase because there are plenty of high-capacity magazines available for Glocks, a far more compact firearm. What Intratec stated was a feeble attempt to pimp their gun despite the fact that it was a total piece of crap. It offered none of the advantages they state.

My position is that the AWB did NOTHING to promote a safer America, because it didn't have any effect on the basic features of the banned firearms. If it did, why was it so simple for gun manufacturers to just remove a few pieces here and there and sell virtually the same gun a few months after the AWB passed at record numbers? Even if the ban were enforced perfectly, what good does removing bayonet lugs and flash hiders do to further protect our citizens? I want the AWB to be recognized for what it was, a failed piece of legislation that was nothing but window-dressing to an ill-informed populace eager to believe whatever they were told if they thought it would cut down on gun violence. It played on the common misperception of the American people on how a semi-automatic and a fully-automatic firearm differ, the myriad laws already on the books for the past 70 yrs regarding ownership of fully-automatic weapons, and the myth that these were the weapon-of-choice for gangs and criminals.

[slackmaster]

82. MGKrebs, I'm sorry to report you are 0 for 2 on facts here

Neither of the weapons you have presented here are "available" to the general public:

- The manufacturer of the TEC-9 pistol went bankrupt several years ago and no longer makes firearms or anything else.

- The Uzi Pistol is not made in the USA and cannot be imported because it is prohibited under a different section of the United States Code:

IMPORTATION

The prohibition on the importation of non-sporting firearms under 18 U.S.C. section 922(l) and 925(d)(3) still applies...

Please see http://www.atf.gov for general information. The quote above is from the fact sheet at http://www.atf.gov/firearms/saw-factsheet.htm

There is a lot more to US gun control laws than most people who aren't dealers or collectors realize. I'm a collector, so it's very much in my best interests to stay informed.

[MGKrebs]

89. Israeli Military Industries will be disappointed.

"IMI optimistic US will lift ban on Uzi sales
Dror Marom
13 Aug 03   14:35
Sources inform “Globes” that Uzi manufacturer Israel Military Industries is optimistic that it will be able to resume sales in the US. Former President Bill Clinton signed a bill banning certain types of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, including the Uzi, blocking signed contracts worth millions of dollars.

The law expires next year, and IMI believes that the Republican administration and Republican-controlled Congress will not renew it."

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=714555&fid=942

[slackmaster]

107. The Uzi Pistol you pictured does not meet the Sporting Purposes test

It has not been importable since 1989, five years before the AWB took effect. There aren't many of them in the country, and I'll bet you can't find a new one for sale here.

My point is that you said that particular weapon will be available.

The same applies to the rest of the IMI product line. The semiauto Uzi carbine in its standard configuration was classified as an AW, but the import ban remains in effect.

No Uzis, no Galils unless the BATFE changes its ruling and allows them to be imported. OTOH IMI could manufacture them here if they can get licensed. That would require BATFE regulatory approval and is not certain to happen. IMI's designs are heavily patented so you won't see any clones being made anywhere. Right now you cannot buy an Uzi pistol in the US other than the few used ones that are floating around.

The TEC-9 is dead as it should be. It was a POS. The design has several patents that belong to the defunct company that made them. In spite of making post-ban versions the company went out of business because its products had a bad reputation. Nobody is going to start manufacturing them.

[makah]

96. what's your take on this statment

Lindacooks (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-14-04 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #4

29. Oh, for pete's sake


All laws tell citizens 'what they can and can't own and do'. That's the definition of a law!

Anybody who 'needs' an assault weapon has some serious character and personality problems. Guess what? A gun won't get rid of your pot belly, it won't make your 'manhood' bigger, it won't make you more attractive to women, and it won't put hair on your head. Grow up.

[slackmaster]

106. I think the statement is juvenile and asinine

Another Amateur Internet Psychologist practicing without a license.

It's also factually wrong - The law tells people what the cannot do, not what they can do. Everything that is not prohibited is automatically allowed.

[makah]

100. Wrong

The company that makes TEC 9 is out of business

[jwirr]

77. I wonder if

bushie is letting this assault weapon law end so that he and his Texans can take over the country when he loses the election? They are stocking up for the war.

[Mac_Muz]

84. A word (long)

I am new here, and probably will be banned from here soon. This note is not linked as an answer to the post it will be linked to.

For days I have read here, and I am not one of you.

It appears in this thread there might be 2 gun owners, besides me that is, and the better part of you are lost..

What promted me to post was the bits on Coulumbine for the most part, but other topics posted I wished to touch on.

I guess you need to know that while I am not one of you I am not a Republican, but am Independant.

I do historical re-enacting for th French and Indian War thru American Fur Trade, which deals with weapons of all kinds primitive.

For 20+ years I have studied, and worked out woodland skills and can start fire with 2 sticks anytime I wish, and make most of my garb and Trade Silver for trade and dollars as was done at that time. I shoot flinters and modern guns.

I used to bring living history to public schools for hire, untill my last day of doing so, and that was Coulumbine.

That day in transit the incident occured, and when I arrived at the school I was greeted by 12 state troopers who told me no guns of any type could be used in my dog and pony show.

No big deal to me, and the show went on with clothing of native types for women provided by my wife who also does this re-enacting, and trade items of the times. Well as usual the class was interupted and a few more classes entered, and the show went on, untill the whole show was stopped so it could be moved out doors so the whole school could see! I was accustomed to this, and starting and stopping don't bother me much. You might say I just live the life style and can begin anyplace I want, and keep things interesting.

I went on with flint and steel fire making and to the bow drill, and was nearly thru leaving out any weapons at all when the Super and the Staties came and asked for the musket to be fired... Ok if thats what ya want fine by me...

I made a dry run with no powder showing the steps and then was told to shoot the blank I would make before their eyes.. Once that was fired applause came forth and everyone including the 12 state's.

No weapon at columbine was consider to be the assault weapons you talk about here. The guns there may as well have been the shotgun your beloved Kerry uses to sway guys like me. Because that day happened at all is the reason I no longer do these shows.

The parents and the children doing that shooting are the ones to blame. Clinton allowing a feel good era is to be blamed. Clinton took personal responcibility from the Nation, and allowed under education in the ways of fire arms.

Clinton came up with a foolish law called the AWB of 94, which did nothing to stop the flow of guns, which would not have worked if guns were booze as that also failed.

The law raised prices of things and stopped collectors such as me from having a copy of a military weapon as exact.. All the weapons were more or less available, but with cosmetic differences. The red grip was tabboo while the black grip was just fine.

No one here can even quote the last time a bayonnett was used in any crime, as that really has not happened ever...

At 9-11 for those of you who think the ban did stop something I saw a liberal of some sort on tv, that said something like "Because American could buy and own guns the skyjackings occured."

Now I don't recall who said that, but it made me angery, and I went out as soon as I could in October and bought a SAR-1 which is a Ak-47 clone. Note this was a 01' version. My wife and I went out to try it and she liked it so well that I made it hers... She is right handed and I am lefty. SO I bought a 02' soon there after.

These are double stack mags, and I have mags in 5 rnds, 10, and 30.
The drums and 40 rnds are too heavy to suit me.

Ballisticly these 7.62x39 shells are rather similar to the old Winchester 30-30, so there goes all that high power stuff right out the window. Also there goes the no sales thing you all seem to think except for 2 other here... Some states might not allow this gun, but that is not National and never was...

Guns are used for many reasons.. My reasons are rather different than even most other gun owners, hence the long story.

Some would say my flinters are fine, but then Ohio wants these too, and these were the Assualt weapons of the times I portray.

Clintons bill dies the death it did because no one wanted the law.. The cops didn't want that law either as it got in the way of fighting crime.

As for helping terrorist, thats a joke coming from the Kerry Camp.

First of all a AK-47 in the assualt weapon type that is fully automaic is legal in the states by only a class 3 lic, and that costs a tax which is hefty and you must pass the background check each and every time, as I do to purchase any modern gun.

I saw some other thread saying you can buy these and other modern guns in other states! That is bunk! You must go thru a FFL dealer in your state to purchase a gun and get a back ground check at that time, so no shopping in Maine, NH Vt and other will do for your efforts... To buy I can only buy in the state I reside in.

I have a lot more to say, but this will be enuff fer ya ta' chew on...

And Oh you can grow poppies, but not the ones opium comes from... But they are still red... Drugs are not legal here, and I don't have much of a opinion and don't use them.... Guns are... In the 2nd you will note the word individual.. That meaning was to allow We the People to save outselves from Tyrants.. perhaps that idea is outdated and perhaps it is not... if I get banned for having my say so be it.. Mac

[saigon68]

92. Welcome to DU

I for one appreciate your views

[Mac_Muz]

102. Not banned yet?

Thxs Sir... I figured to be banned by now... Being Independant gets me no friends. So much law has been written since the CONS, and seemingly never stops, most of which is against the CONS which I wonder about. Don't the poly's read that before creating laws?

At times I think legal aliens read and know our CONS better than the poly's and the rest of us.. Mac

[Catherine Vincent]

95. Well at least your post was nice.

Forget the guns. What are you thoughts on Dubya?

[Mac_Muz]

101. cat....

I don't care much for either of em. For more reasons than I said last night, I vote for the gun. Doing so might seem wrong to you and most others here, but I have my reasons and one day you all might know why that is.

It appears to me that We the people want our country back, and the poly-tics in so called charge think otherwise no matter what brand of lies they tell.. Bush is no different than Kerry will be, or have it the other way around.. Both speak with forked tongue. Mac

[klingel]

90. Hunting rifel w/scope is radically more dangeous than assalt weapon

An assalt weapon is designed to be used in combat with an opposing army. Please read on. They are designed to withstand the rigors of war i.e. swamps, deserts ect. What does that mean? They are less accurate. They can still function under adverse conditions and can be taken apart easily for cleaning. This makes them less acurate. This is a fact. If someone ever wanted to kill me I hope he would use an assalt weapon to do it instead of a hunting rifle. I am more likely to survive the ordeal. This is not a joke.

[Columbia]

99. There is no such thing as an Assault Weapon

[DFWJock]

115. Note to self:

Stay away from Fort Worth.

[Mick Knox]

118. Shooting up a school happened DURING the AWB

And it was illegal then to shoot up a school-it's still illegal.

A law wont stop someone who is inclined to shoot up a school.

Some flawed arguments coming from the antiAWB folks - they flaw their argument continuously with crapoloa and strawmen

[DoNotRefill]

119. I'm still waiting....

for the first reported random drive-by bayoneting...

[DaveSZ]

124. "ironic, isn't it, that a Republican president banned importation of guns"

Not really.

Reagan and Bush SR were both pro gun control.

[jackieforthedems]

126. Guess I'd Be Stock Piling Them, Too

if I lived in a state where UN military vehicles were coming in through the ports consistently. Go to infowars.com and look under UN Vehicles On U.S. Soil.

[Zomby Woof]

127. I guess Viagra doesn't work so well after all

Since the latent need for penis power seems prevalent in light of the ban being lifted.

At least we knew for 10 years that banning the weapons didn't make the Big Bad Gummint "take all our guns away!" The slippery slope argument fell flat on its face.

Sure was nice having a steady decline in violent crime too.

But never mind changing the law - it's the SICK, IMPOTENT American culture in need of some serious reform.

[Jack_DeLeon]

128. how can you claim that...

when anti-gun activists want to restrict even more guns?