Assault Gun ban to end Monday, yeehawwww!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&ncid=533&e=9&u=/ap/20040907/ap_on_re_us/assault_weapons

With the federal ban on assault weapons set to expire next Monday, gun manufacturers are marketing military-style firearms and are ready to sell them as soon as Sept. 14, a consumer group said Tuesday.

“The gun industry is champing at the bit for the ban to expire,” said Susan Peschin, firearms project director at the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit association of 300 consumer groups that released the study.

The consumer group interviewed gun industry experts and marketing representatives and surveyed manufacturers’ catalogs and Web sites.

For example, ArmaLite Inc., a gun manufacturer in Geneseo, Ill., is advertising a “Post-PostBan Rifle Program,” offering consumers attachments to convert their firearms to their pre-ban configuration, with shipping available Sept. 14. The company is offering a nonrefundable prepayment option to those who wish to get a jump-start.

“The program offers customers a way to avoid the risk of delay, yet also have the benefits of a change in law,” the company says on its Web site.

The 1994 law, signed by President Clinton (news - web sites), banned 19 types of assault weapons but included a “sunset” clause that said it would automatically expire in 10 years if Congress did not renew it.

Dubya says he’s for the ban, but gosh, a Congress controlled by his party has not extended the ban. Golly dag! Are you ready for some CARNAGE?

Anyone wants to sign the Moveon petition, it’s here.

Congress is in session… let’s see what (doesn’t) happen…

The ban didn’t have one iota of effect on homicides; criminals can still get all the fully automatic ‘assault’ weapons they want. Who cares if the ban sunsets?

I care. I don’t want some untrained yahoo next door to have one.

He can still get one, ban or not, mate. :(

I love how this is the argument people bring up about gun control laws, even though it applies to every single law ever conceived of.

Holy crap! Passing a law doesn’t make something physically impossible? You don’t say!

It might be a bit harder if the Walmart down the street didn’t sell them, you know?

Huh? This bill was a feel-good measure that did not make anyone in this country safer.

Okay, I need to edumacate some of you.

  1. The term “assault weapon” is slang. Literally, any weapon that you can use to assault someone with is an “assault weapon”. I think common public sentiment is “Gee, if it looks scary, it’s an assault weapon.”

  2. The 1994 ban DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO OWN FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. It just regulated the manufacturer and importation of NEW weapons. If you legally owned one before, you can still own one today, and legally sell it as well.

The ownership of fully automatic weapons is already restricted and governed by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/national_firearms_act.html

Again, the “ban” does not prohibit civilians from owning fully-automatic weapons.

  1. The 1994 ban mainly prohibited assembling various semi-automatic firearms with two or more of their originally-standard external attachments, such as a variable-position stock or flash suppressor. For example, Springfield M1As, previously made with two attachments, are now made with only a flash suppressor.

I can’t see how that made the country safer.

  1. The ban also made it illegal to manufacture a handgun ammo clip that held more than 10 rounds. So, before the law went into effect, every goddamn machine shop in the USA spit out tens of thousands of ammo clips. Remember, it’s not illegal to buy and sell the big clips manufactured before the ban went into effect.

I could go to any place that sells used firearms or firearms accessories and legally purchase some 15-round clips for a Glock.

I can’t see how this makes the country any safer either.

Did you read the part of the story where a company was trying to move 7500
AK-47’s into the country with a view to selling them when the ban ran out? Tell me how it’s just a feel-good measure if we can keep 7500 AK’s from getting out into the open?

Oddly enough, I’d much rather my crazy neighbor have an M16A2 than a 9mm, if only because I’m more likely to survive an attack from the former rather than the latter.

It’s the easily concealed weapons that scare me more than assault rifles.

Even after the bill expires:

  1. Foreign-made guns such as the AK-47 and Uzi will remain prohibited from importation under the BATFE’s 1989 reinterpretation of firearm importation law

  2. Similarly-designed “assault pistols” will remain prohibited from importation under BATFE’s 1993 reinterpretation of the same law.

  3. Street Sweepers and other revolving cylinder shotguns will remain regulated under the National Firearms Act, to which they have been subject since 1994.

My opinion of this bill is that it doesn’t do anything useful anymore.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this bill might have actually encouraged people who want to own an AK-47 to buy one blackmarket. A legally registered AK-47 goes for about $7000 because they cannot be legally imported, and every ownership transfer adds $200 to the price (BATF registration fee). A blackmarket full-auto AK-47 could probably be had for about $1500*, because CRIMINALS DON’T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

Let’s not waste any more taxdollars on useless legislation. We’re already paying through the nose to rebuild Iraq.

If we really want to reduce the number of firearms in the United States, we have to change it from the bottom up by slowly changing public perception. But with guns glorified in movies and computer games, and this pervasive culture of fear** that’s been bred by our politicians, I just don’t see that happening. I don’t have the first idea how you’d change public perception either.

    • I’m just making this number up, btw. I don’t really know how much a blackmarket AK-47 is sold for in the US blackmarket. They sell for $500 or less in other countries.

** - Both the fear that makes you afraid that your next-door neighbor might commit a crime with an AK-47 if she owned one, and the fear that makes your next-door neighbor think she has to own an AK-47 to defend her home and country from would-be assailants.

Am I just looking at the prices incorrectly here, or does it seem possible to get AKs that could be easily converted for less than the $7000 you spoke of?

Damnit … this thread is really making me miss my M16A2. I’ve never been a gun person, never owned one personally, but I actually enjoyed being responsible for that damn piece of cheap plastic and metal back in the Army.

I am glad the ban is ending.

It might be a bit harder if the Walmart down the street didn’t sell them, you know?[/quote]

Not really, but if it makes you feel better to think so…

It might be a bit harder if the Walmart down the street didn’t sell them, you know?[/quote]

Not really, but if it makes you feel better to think so…[/quote] :roll:

Yeah, extarbags, it’s definitely Zarathustra that’s the silly poster in this thread.

I’m all for removing the legislation that prevents me from buying nuclear weapons. I mean it doesn’t stop criminals from getting them, so why shouldn’t I have them as well?!?!?

A well deserved sunset to a horrible largely cosmetic law. Good riddance, although I’m sure it will be back.

As always, I am amazed by the rampant stupidity of some posters here. Why do private citizens need assault rifles? Hunting? Ah, no. Protection against the criminals in their 'hood that already have them? Yeah, right. Well, I like to keep an old Panzerfaust handy. Never know when an armored bulldozer will try to take out my town… :roll: