Cleetus
August 6th, 2004, 02:56 PM
Ok, does anyone know, is this thing going to sunset?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Assault rifles
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 02:59 PM
Some more detail...remember some of us live under a rock... :cool:
paraflyer
August 6th, 2004, 03:01 PM
It had better sunset...it was useless to begin with.
Cleetus
August 6th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Some more detail...remember some of us live under a rock... :cool:
Assault weapon ban is set to sunset in about a month....
Assault weapon ban is set to sunset in about a month....
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 03:09 PM
Assault weapon ban is set to sunset in about a month....
What's it mean to sunset?
What's it mean to sunset?
paraflyer
August 6th, 2004, 03:11 PM
In a word:
Die!
Die!
Wayward Clam
August 6th, 2004, 03:16 PM
It's going to expire, and assault weapons will no longer be banned.
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 03:35 PM
Does that mean that the 10 round max capacity for hand gun's will go away? I have a grandfathered in 9mm Glock that holds 18 in the clip…I only have one 18 rounder, and finding a legal (Non-for law enforcement) replacement for less than $100 is next to near impossible, if I can even find it. The 10 round clips are high to…like $50 last time I checked…I just want to be able to take down two platoons before I run out of clips…Ya_know!?!
Cleetus
August 6th, 2004, 03:43 PM
Does that mean that the 10 round max capacity for hand gun's will go away? I have a grandfathered in 9mm Glock that holds 18 in the clip…I only have one 18 rounder, and finding a legal (Non-for law enforcement) replacement for less than $100 is next to near impossible, if I can even find it. The 10 round clips are high to…like $50 last time I checked…I just want to be able to take down two platoons before I run out of clips…Ya_know!?!
Yep, that is what I am waiting for, I want a 9mm, but want a hicap one
Yep, that is what I am waiting for, I want a 9mm, but want a hicap one
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Yep, that is what I am waiting for, I want a 9mm, but want a hicap one
So is that bundled in with the assault rifles thing or not? Got any links, I am starting to show an interest
So is that bundled in with the assault rifles thing or not? Got any links, I am starting to show an interest
paraflyer
August 6th, 2004, 04:09 PM
Actually yes, I believe that the hi-cap issue was part of the AWB.
Along with bayonet mounts (heard of anyone being assaulted with a bayonet since WW2?), pistol grips (why? no one knows), folding stocks (guess they collapsed when used as a club?), Flash hiders (guess we wouldn't want to blind ourselves, would we)......
Along with bayonet mounts (heard of anyone being assaulted with a bayonet since WW2?), pistol grips (why? no one knows), folding stocks (guess they collapsed when used as a club?), Flash hiders (guess we wouldn't want to blind ourselves, would we)......
Cleetus
August 6th, 2004, 04:13 PM
So is that bundled in with the assault rifles thing or not? Got any links, I am starting to show an interest
Sorry, no links, just know that they were with it...
Sorry, no links, just know that they were with it...
techs
August 7th, 2004, 11:08 PM
So if those guys in Albany who were arrested for attempting to sell rocket launchers had waited until September they would be in the clear?
What a great idea. Let any Ahmed or Akbar pick up a couple of dozen tech-9's with 30 round clips while wearing his "I love Jihad" tee shirt.
What a great idea. Let any Ahmed or Akbar pick up a couple of dozen tech-9's with 30 round clips while wearing his "I love Jihad" tee shirt.
paraflyer
August 9th, 2004, 07:55 AM
So if those guys in Albany who were arrested for attempting to sell rocket launchers had waited until September they would be in the clear?
What a great idea. Let any Ahmed or Akbar pick up a couple of dozen tech-9's with 30 round clips while wearing his "I love Jihad" tee shirt.
Boy, you really are showing your ignorance regarding the AWB, aren't you?
If "Ahmed or Akbar" want those types of weapons, no ban in the world will prevent them from getting them on the black market. I've said it before: criminals , BY THEIR VERY NATURE, will NOT obey a law if it stands in their way.
All the AWB did was prevent law-abiding citizens from owning what they want to own. It did damn near nothing to reduce crime, just gave the Brady Bunch and a bunch of politicians the ever-popular "feel good" mentality.
BTW, rocket launchers aren't considered assault weapons.
What a great idea. Let any Ahmed or Akbar pick up a couple of dozen tech-9's with 30 round clips while wearing his "I love Jihad" tee shirt.
Boy, you really are showing your ignorance regarding the AWB, aren't you?
If "Ahmed or Akbar" want those types of weapons, no ban in the world will prevent them from getting them on the black market. I've said it before: criminals , BY THEIR VERY NATURE, will NOT obey a law if it stands in their way.
All the AWB did was prevent law-abiding citizens from owning what they want to own. It did damn near nothing to reduce crime, just gave the Brady Bunch and a bunch of politicians the ever-popular "feel good" mentality.
BTW, rocket launchers aren't considered assault weapons.
techs
August 9th, 2004, 08:15 AM
Boy, you really are showing your ignorance regarding the AWB, aren't you?
If "Ahmed or Akbar" want those types of weapons, no ban in the world will prevent them from getting them on the black market. I've said it before: criminals , BY THEIR VERY NATURE, will NOT obey a law if it stands in their way.
All the AWB did was prevent law-abiding citizens from owning what they want to own. It did damn near nothing to reduce crime, just gave the Brady Bunch and a bunch of politicians the ever-popular "feel good" mentality.
BTW, rocket launchers aren't considered assault weapons.
For foreign nationals it is at least slightly more difficult to obtain illegal weapons. And during that attempt they may be caught. Therefore an entire terrorist plot may be disrupted.
And the law is not intended to stop the criminal who will go to great length to get the weapon. It will slow down the crazy people. Anything that makes it even slightly more difficult for a wacked out person to run and buy an assault weapon to take down to the mall is a good thing.
A rocket launcher is not considered an assualt weapon? (you mean under this law, you're right)
If "Ahmed or Akbar" want those types of weapons, no ban in the world will prevent them from getting them on the black market. I've said it before: criminals , BY THEIR VERY NATURE, will NOT obey a law if it stands in their way.
All the AWB did was prevent law-abiding citizens from owning what they want to own. It did damn near nothing to reduce crime, just gave the Brady Bunch and a bunch of politicians the ever-popular "feel good" mentality.
BTW, rocket launchers aren't considered assault weapons.
For foreign nationals it is at least slightly more difficult to obtain illegal weapons. And during that attempt they may be caught. Therefore an entire terrorist plot may be disrupted.
And the law is not intended to stop the criminal who will go to great length to get the weapon. It will slow down the crazy people. Anything that makes it even slightly more difficult for a wacked out person to run and buy an assault weapon to take down to the mall is a good thing.
A rocket launcher is not considered an assualt weapon? (you mean under this law, you're right)
paraflyer
August 9th, 2004, 10:00 AM
For foreign nationals it is at least slightly more difficult to obtain illegal weapons. And during that attempt they may be caught. Therefore an entire terrorist plot may be disrupted.
And the law is not intended to stop the criminal who will go to great length to get the weapon. It will slow down the crazy people. Anything that makes it even slightly more difficult for a wacked out person to run and buy an assault weapon to take down to the mall is a good thing.
A rocket launcher is not considered an assualt weapon? (you mean under this law, you're right)
Hell, not even GOA and NRA consider rocket launchers to be assault weapons.
And your hypothetical "wacked-out person" could just as easily dump Ricin (or, easier yet, chlorine gas) into the mall's air handlers.
Why not just keep the crazy off the street in the first place?
And the law is not intended to stop the criminal who will go to great length to get the weapon. It will slow down the crazy people. Anything that makes it even slightly more difficult for a wacked out person to run and buy an assault weapon to take down to the mall is a good thing.
A rocket launcher is not considered an assualt weapon? (you mean under this law, you're right)
Hell, not even GOA and NRA consider rocket launchers to be assault weapons.
And your hypothetical "wacked-out person" could just as easily dump Ricin (or, easier yet, chlorine gas) into the mall's air handlers.
Why not just keep the crazy off the street in the first place?
corturbra
August 9th, 2004, 10:30 AM
I've said it before: criminals , BY THEIR VERY NATURE, will NOT obey a law if it stands in their way.
All the AWB did was prevent law-abiding citizens from owning what they want to own. It did damn near nothing to reduce crime, just gave the Brady Bunch and a bunch of politicians the ever-popular "feel good" mentality.
BTW, rocket launchers aren't considered assault weapons.
Yep proven in the UK... gun crime has risen since the banning of handguns. Same with anything, make it illegal and it goes underground and you lose all control over it.
What would have been better would have been a ban on storing the weapons at home, thereby preventing unstable people from travelling around with them. Curious people will want to experience for themselves so now they go underground, buying unsafe hardware/out of date ammo, and using them irresponsibly when they could be going to a licensed establishment..... The interest in weapons here is also proven by the rocketing increase in replica/blank firing/CO2 sales.
All the AWB did was prevent law-abiding citizens from owning what they want to own. It did damn near nothing to reduce crime, just gave the Brady Bunch and a bunch of politicians the ever-popular "feel good" mentality.
BTW, rocket launchers aren't considered assault weapons.
Yep proven in the UK... gun crime has risen since the banning of handguns. Same with anything, make it illegal and it goes underground and you lose all control over it.
What would have been better would have been a ban on storing the weapons at home, thereby preventing unstable people from travelling around with them. Curious people will want to experience for themselves so now they go underground, buying unsafe hardware/out of date ammo, and using them irresponsibly when they could be going to a licensed establishment..... The interest in weapons here is also proven by the rocketing increase in replica/blank firing/CO2 sales.
paraflyer
August 9th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Yep proven in the UK... gun crime has risen since the banning of handguns. Same with anything, make it illegal and it goes underground and you lose all control over it.
What would have been better would have been a ban on storing the weapons at home, thereby preventing unstable people from travelling around with them. Curious people will want to experience for themselves so now they go underground, buying unsafe hardware/out of date ammo, and using them irresponsibly when they could be going to a licensed establishment..... The interest in weapons here is also proven by the rocketing increase in replica/blank firing/CO2 sales.
Or better yet (as I said before), why not screen those "unstable people" for whatever condition they may have?
Banning the storage of weapons at home still punishes those who are stable, law-abiding citizens.
Your way is merely punishing the public-at-large for the actions of a few.
What would have been better would have been a ban on storing the weapons at home, thereby preventing unstable people from travelling around with them. Curious people will want to experience for themselves so now they go underground, buying unsafe hardware/out of date ammo, and using them irresponsibly when they could be going to a licensed establishment..... The interest in weapons here is also proven by the rocketing increase in replica/blank firing/CO2 sales.
Or better yet (as I said before), why not screen those "unstable people" for whatever condition they may have?
Banning the storage of weapons at home still punishes those who are stable, law-abiding citizens.
Your way is merely punishing the public-at-large for the actions of a few.
ilovetheusers
August 9th, 2004, 01:43 PM
Actually yes, I believe that the hi-cap issue was part of the AWB.
Along with bayonet mounts (heard of anyone being assaulted with a bayonet since WW2?), pistol grips (why? no one knows), folding stocks (guess they collapsed when used as a club?), Flash hiders (guess we wouldn't want to blind ourselves, would we)......
Folding stocks and pistol grips make concealing weapons easier - remove the stock and replace it with a pistol grip and a folding stock and you have a more easily concealed firearm. There's no great reason for the public to NEED these for the last ditch defense against tyrrany or for much more really. I have no idea why you can't have a bayonette clip.
Along with bayonet mounts (heard of anyone being assaulted with a bayonet since WW2?), pistol grips (why? no one knows), folding stocks (guess they collapsed when used as a club?), Flash hiders (guess we wouldn't want to blind ourselves, would we)......
Folding stocks and pistol grips make concealing weapons easier - remove the stock and replace it with a pistol grip and a folding stock and you have a more easily concealed firearm. There's no great reason for the public to NEED these for the last ditch defense against tyrrany or for much more really. I have no idea why you can't have a bayonette clip.
paraflyer
August 9th, 2004, 03:01 PM
Folding stocks and pistol grips make concealing weapons easier
Easier to conceal, only if the trench coat being worn during the summer doesn't give it away.
And you blew it with the word "need".
Second Amendment isn't about NEEDS.
Easier to conceal, only if the trench coat being worn during the summer doesn't give it away.
And you blew it with the word "need".
Second Amendment isn't about NEEDS.
techs
August 9th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Why not just keep the crazy off the street in the first place?
Heck, lets just lock up all the mentally ill. Then we can move on to other "undesirables".
Heck, lets just lock up all the mentally ill. Then we can move on to other "undesirables".
Zil
August 9th, 2004, 05:21 PM
Heck, lets just lock up all the mentally ill. Then we can move on to other "undesirables".
Like fetuses!
Like fetuses!
corturbra
August 10th, 2004, 04:21 AM
Or better yet (as I said before), why not screen those "unstable people" for whatever condition they may have?
Banning the storage of weapons at home still punishes those who are stable, law-abiding citizens.
Your way is merely punishing the public-at-large for the actions of a few.
I agree about the screening part, however on the restrictions of owning/using weapons, I disagree. My way still allows the public at large to continue their chosen hobby/sport/way of life, although in a more controlled way.
The actions of the few will always dictate the freedoms of the many.
What would you prefer no access to weapons or access in a controlled and safe environment?
Banning the storage of weapons at home still punishes those who are stable, law-abiding citizens.
Your way is merely punishing the public-at-large for the actions of a few.
I agree about the screening part, however on the restrictions of owning/using weapons, I disagree. My way still allows the public at large to continue their chosen hobby/sport/way of life, although in a more controlled way.
The actions of the few will always dictate the freedoms of the many.
What would you prefer no access to weapons or access in a controlled and safe environment?
paraflyer
August 10th, 2004, 07:45 AM
I agree about the screening part, however on the restrictions of owning/using weapons, I disagree. My way still allows the public at large to continue their chosen hobby/sport/way of life, although in a more controlled way.
The actions of the few will always dictate the freedoms of the many.
What would you prefer no access to weapons or access in a controlled and safe environment?
Access, period.....with the right to defend (in this case, shoot back) if warranted. Self-policing at gun ranges... I have yet to hear of anything happening at the local range regarding "someone going nuts" and shooting up the club's members and property.
Obviously the "no access" idea fails miserably, look at the UK and Australia.....especially the Aussies, the gun-control program's so bad, no they're after sword/bayonet/machete control as well.
What's your definition of "controlled and safe"? Government-run ranges, with total lockup in an armory? Look out for miles of red tape, followed by huge fees for "safety training", usage, storage and environmental fees, etc....
The actions of the few will always dictate the freedoms of the many.
What would you prefer no access to weapons or access in a controlled and safe environment?
Access, period.....with the right to defend (in this case, shoot back) if warranted. Self-policing at gun ranges... I have yet to hear of anything happening at the local range regarding "someone going nuts" and shooting up the club's members and property.
Obviously the "no access" idea fails miserably, look at the UK and Australia.....especially the Aussies, the gun-control program's so bad, no they're after sword/bayonet/machete control as well.
What's your definition of "controlled and safe"? Government-run ranges, with total lockup in an armory? Look out for miles of red tape, followed by huge fees for "safety training", usage, storage and environmental fees, etc....
paraflyer
August 10th, 2004, 07:45 AM
Heck, lets just lock up all the mentally ill. Then we can move on to other "undesirables".
First you need to define it.
First you need to define it.
corturbra
August 10th, 2004, 07:53 AM
Access, period.....with the right to defend (in this case, shoot back) if warranted. Self-policing at gun ranges... I have yet to hear of anything happening at the local range regarding "someone going nuts" and shooting up the club's members and property.
Obviously the "no access" idea fails miserably, look at the UK and Australia.....especially the Aussies, the gun-control program's so bad, no they're after sword/bayonet/machete control as well.
What's your definition of "controlled and safe"? Government-run ranges, with total lockup in an armory? Look out for miles of red tape, followed by huge fees for "safety training", usage, storage and environmental fees, etc....
Hey man, easy on me! I'm with you 100% I'm just saying that in the UK rather than a total ban a happy medium would have been restricting storage of weapons at a gun club, better than an outright ban.
Obviously the "no access" idea fails miserably, look at the UK and Australia.....especially the Aussies, the gun-control program's so bad, no they're after sword/bayonet/machete control as well.
What's your definition of "controlled and safe"? Government-run ranges, with total lockup in an armory? Look out for miles of red tape, followed by huge fees for "safety training", usage, storage and environmental fees, etc....
Hey man, easy on me! I'm with you 100% I'm just saying that in the UK rather than a total ban a happy medium would have been restricting storage of weapons at a gun club, better than an outright ban.
paraflyer
August 10th, 2004, 08:32 AM
Hey man, easy on me! I'm with you 100% I'm just saying that in the UK rather than a total ban a happy medium would have been restricting storage of weapons at a gun club, better than an outright ban.
Ahh, sorry if I came across wrong.
Ahh, sorry if I came across wrong.
thirdfey
August 10th, 2004, 01:14 PM
Along with bayonet mounts (heard of anyone being assaulted with a bayonet since WW2?), pistol grips (why? no one knows), folding stocks (guess they collapsed when used as a club?), Flash hiders (guess we wouldn't want to blind ourselves, would we)......
Bayonets because of all the drive by bayonetting in the pre-1994 days. Flash hiders because thats what the grenade adapters attach to when firing a grenade from the barrel of a rifle with specialy made ammunition. So again, flash hiders were banned because of all the drive by genading that had been going on in the pre-1994 world.
ilovetheusers: You did blow it in your statement when you said "need." Take a minute and thing about what you typed. Let's ban things because people don't need them. Ok, do people really need big SUV's? No one's house needs to be more than 1500 square feet in reality. No one needs to express their individuality.....
corturbra: for those that don't have a lot of faith in mace they prefer a firearm for home protection. Shotguns seem to make the best firearm for home protection.
The assault weapon ban did not do what it was intended to do. Congress new this after they passed the bill which is why they added the 10 year sunset to it. It is a ban that makes people feel good in name only. Hell, look at techs reaction for an example of what I am talking about. If someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it. Just think of what some people did with box cutters a couple years ago and how it has changed the US of A since.
Bayonets because of all the drive by bayonetting in the pre-1994 days. Flash hiders because thats what the grenade adapters attach to when firing a grenade from the barrel of a rifle with specialy made ammunition. So again, flash hiders were banned because of all the drive by genading that had been going on in the pre-1994 world.
ilovetheusers: You did blow it in your statement when you said "need." Take a minute and thing about what you typed. Let's ban things because people don't need them. Ok, do people really need big SUV's? No one's house needs to be more than 1500 square feet in reality. No one needs to express their individuality.....
corturbra: for those that don't have a lot of faith in mace they prefer a firearm for home protection. Shotguns seem to make the best firearm for home protection.
The assault weapon ban did not do what it was intended to do. Congress new this after they passed the bill which is why they added the 10 year sunset to it. It is a ban that makes people feel good in name only. Hell, look at techs reaction for an example of what I am talking about. If someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it. Just think of what some people did with box cutters a couple years ago and how it has changed the US of A since.
RejectionMan
August 10th, 2004, 03:00 PM
I like chris rocks solution, we dont need gun control we need bullet control.
If every bullet cost $5000 there would be alot less gun violence and when it did happen they used a musket loader, or that guy must ahve done something thers $50,000 worth of bullets in his ***. Not to mention the inocent bystander, at $5000 a pop there are no inocent bystanders.
If every bullet cost $5000 there would be alot less gun violence and when it did happen they used a musket loader, or that guy must ahve done something thers $50,000 worth of bullets in his ***. Not to mention the inocent bystander, at $5000 a pop there are no inocent bystanders.
paraflyer
August 10th, 2004, 03:12 PM
I like chris rocks solution, we dont need gun control we need bullet control.
If every bullet cost $5000 there would be alot less gun violence and when it did happen they used a musket loader, or that guy must ahve done something thers $50,000 worth of bullets in his ***. Not to mention the inocent bystander, at $5000 a pop there are no inocent bystanders.
Then my little reloading press would be worth its weight in gold. It's easy enough to cast lead shot, and bond copper to them...instant FMJ.
Or give them a tungsten steel core...AP anyone?
Or a few grains' worth of magnesium in the tail...tracers.
Or, if you have access, use hollowpoint ammo and fill the void with white phosphorus, then seal....incendiary rounds. I leave it as a mental exercise to the reader as to how they're going to handle the stuff, much less obtain it. I certainly do not have a hermetically sealed work area with 99.99% nitrogen content!
If every bullet cost $5000 there would be alot less gun violence and when it did happen they used a musket loader, or that guy must ahve done something thers $50,000 worth of bullets in his ***. Not to mention the inocent bystander, at $5000 a pop there are no inocent bystanders.
Then my little reloading press would be worth its weight in gold. It's easy enough to cast lead shot, and bond copper to them...instant FMJ.
Or give them a tungsten steel core...AP anyone?
Or a few grains' worth of magnesium in the tail...tracers.
Or, if you have access, use hollowpoint ammo and fill the void with white phosphorus, then seal....incendiary rounds. I leave it as a mental exercise to the reader as to how they're going to handle the stuff, much less obtain it. I certainly do not have a hermetically sealed work area with 99.99% nitrogen content!
ilovetheusers
August 10th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Easier to conceal, only if the trench coat being worn during the summer doesn't give it away.
And you blew it with the word "need".
Second Amendment isn't about NEEDS.
I know where you are coming from but when they drafted the Bill of Rights this was a heated topic and it was left in mostly for the fact that in case the govenment became tyranical, the people could take it back by force if need be. I don't think that they intended everyone to have every single thing related to firearms legal.
I understand the slipery slope argument and I really do agree. I was just pointing out why this was put into place. I don't know this for a fact but I expect that a lot of it comes from gang warfare and law enforcement. I agree that it's stupid and will not deter any criminals who will modify or have their weapons modified anyway and it should fall to the wayside.
Instead of stupid laws like this we should just increase the penalty for using firearms of ANY sort in a crime and then allocate $$$ to enforce the law.
And you blew it with the word "need".
Second Amendment isn't about NEEDS.
I know where you are coming from but when they drafted the Bill of Rights this was a heated topic and it was left in mostly for the fact that in case the govenment became tyranical, the people could take it back by force if need be. I don't think that they intended everyone to have every single thing related to firearms legal.
I understand the slipery slope argument and I really do agree. I was just pointing out why this was put into place. I don't know this for a fact but I expect that a lot of it comes from gang warfare and law enforcement. I agree that it's stupid and will not deter any criminals who will modify or have their weapons modified anyway and it should fall to the wayside.
Instead of stupid laws like this we should just increase the penalty for using firearms of ANY sort in a crime and then allocate $$$ to enforce the law.
windrivers.com
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.