# Poll: Assault Weapons Bill



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

_...A ten-year ban on some forms of semi-automatic firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons expires in the United States Monday..._

Wondering how the rest of you feel about it.


----------



## bdqadvisor (Aug 5, 2004)

If I hit you with a chair, doesn't that make a chair an assault weapon? The whole issue was nothing but political bulls**t from the goonie goo goo tree huggers.

Instead, we should have a 5 day waiting period on Ryder rental trucks. Until 9/11, every major terrorist incident here involved a Ryder truck.


----------



## Patrick258 (Sep 5, 2004)

hmm trucks that go boom boom, I am sick of bs laws.


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm glad I'm not the only one glad the bill lapsed... lets make sure its not replaced with an even stricter bill.


----------



## BOSCO5O (May 4, 2004)

TED KENNEDY'S CAR HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE THEN MY BANNED "ASSAULT RIFLE"


----------



## BartA1 (May 5, 2002)

In my humble opinion Gun laws serve no purpose other than to penalize the lawful owner for owning a particular type of weapon that is on the current bad gun list. I would like to see mandatory minimum sentences anytime a gun is used in a crime. I dont know say John Q Scumbag robs a liquor store with a gun and gets caught. John Q Scumbag gets 8 years for the Robbery, and he can get parole in 3 how about because he used a gun he gets an automatic 10 years added on that he has to do every day of.

I will second the motion that Fat Boy Teddy's Car has killed more people than any of my guns


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

These criminals who intend to commit violent crimes that have the potential to put them away for the rest of thier lives are not going to think twice that the gun they just bought from some kid in the parking lot of a Market Basket in Lawrence is illegal to own, because thier intent is to use it in a crime and if they're caught they are going to jail anyway.

_"Gee, maybe I should go out and shoot my wife/neighbor/gas station attendant with a legally owned, registered and permitted .22, because this <insert banned weapon here> is illegal." _ I don't think so.

While I am generally against mandatory sentencing, I'd roll around in my head, the idea of a mandatory sentence for a violent gun crime. Not any gun crime or a mandatory sentence for possession of a weapon/ammo... I am definately NOT in favor of that. There was a guy, I cant recall where he lived, who owned a pistol and didn't register it properly... he shot and killed someone in his apartment who was trying to rape his wife. While the shooting was rulled justified, he didn't posess the weapon legally so he was off to jail for a mandatory one year sentence. Thats why I am not for mandatory sentences... it removes the discression of the trial judge to make allowances in cases like that.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Well said JohnNH....Oddly enough most anti-gun liberals would be the first in line to defend some criminal who uses a gun in a crime; screaming against "mandatory sentencing" and how what a deprived/abused child he/she was, yet they would love to ban all firearms for law-abiding citizens. Funny that they blame the tools, not the carpenter.....


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Most of us know that the "Assault Weapons Ban" , or Crime Bill Act of 1994, or "Clinton's Folly" was a TOTAL Joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:shock: 

Wait until the statistics come in for the last ten years. How much safer where the victims in the D.C. Shootings? Did it matter whether or not the Bushmaster XM-15 used was pre or post ban configuration? NO NO NO!!! The bayonet lug and/or flash suppressor had no relevance in those MURDERS.

I t makes me sick that the media wants Americans to believe that AR-15' s and AK-47's are suddenly for sale because they are no longer "banned" They NEVER were banned!Only certain configurations such as collapsable stocks and bayonet lugs (more aesthetic than practical) What a bunch of sheep eating the liberal-slop at the T.V./print/radio troughs!!!!!!!
:BM: :FM: :uc:


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Since a true 'assault weapon' is capable of fully automatic operation, assault weapons have been banned since about 1938.

I guess if I equipped my 1903 with a petersen device, the anti-defense lobby would consider it an 'assault weapon'.

Fortunately, I saw the hand writing on the wall and purchased a whole bunch of pre-ban magazines for my mini 14! Why? Not because I needed them, but because I could and because I wanted to!

It all depends on whose ox is being gored! Apply the gun law logic to automobiles: "Sorry, sir, but you have no need for a 200 MPH Viper...because you are single you only need a.......Ford Festiva! It's top speed is 65 MPH, because that is the speed limit...." :shock: This logic can be applied to all our "unnecessary" hobbies: boats, snow mobiles, car collecting (sorry, your 1953 Hudson can't pass the smog test...), skiing ( sorry, you may cause serious bodily injuries to yourself or others which would adversely effect the cost of health care in this country...). You get the idea.

Monsieur Kerry said that there wasn't "one cop" in this country that wanted to see the ban expire. Guess we don't count. :evil:


----------



## 2-Delta (Aug 13, 2003)

Good ole Mass is the only state that this bill does not effect, since nothing has changed for us yet. So unless you want to go to New Hampshire and smuggle that rifle in....


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

awwww s#it I clicked on the wrong one. I clicked on #4

*I feel the assault weapons bill had an effect on crime in my jurisdiction. 2% [ 1 ] *

Feel free to disregard this vote since the AWB has done absolutely nothing to reduce crime in the USA. (Unless you want to count gun dealers charging $80.00 for a hi-cap pre-ban Glock mag a crime, which it should be.)

It was the prettiest sunset I had seen in some time!!


----------



## Dan H (Sep 22, 2004)

Good or bad that we have firearms licensing? I admire the freedom that people up in Vermont have: no permits. Anyone over what, 18 or 21, that can legally own a firearm can carry it. I'm sure they are still subject to some sort of background check. Now I have no problem in MA that we have the licensing process we do. We aren't subjected to any type of waiting period when we go to make a purchase, one quick call is all it takes. 
I definitely had problems with the lack of sense behind the 1994 AWB. And I will continue to have problems with Ma continuing the same criteria of the bill. Anyone with common sense knows that if you take a nice Mini-14 and take off the folding stock and flash suppressor and add a pretty pink polymer stock and a muzzle brake made from a porcelain doll it doesn't make it any less than the tool is was designed to be. What kind of fool thinks that a cosmetic attribute of a firearm makes them any more menacing? How is having one 30rd clip instead of 3 10rd clips going to convince someone to rob a liquor store or murder someone? Is lack of a folding stock going to keep a crime from being committed? 
It does seem that every gun law does nothing but try and punish/limit legally armed citizens. Does any of this stop some thug from going down to Springfield and buying a gun out of some guys trunk? I really wonder why doesn't the country try to address the causes of violence instead of the tools that are used. If someone has it in them to kill their cheating wife instead of leaving her it's not going to make much of a difference if he has a 19rd Glock, a 10rd Glock, or no Glock at all. 
Another peeve of mine is the Attorney General's consumer protection on handgun sales. If some citizen doesn't know if their chamber is loaded and doesn't know how to check they shouldn't have their permit. If they don't know pulling a 3.5lb trigger and a 10lb trigger will have the same affect, they shouldn't have their permit. How about needing a safety on a DAO pistol? The only parts that make sense are the drop test and the function test even though the limits might be too strict. 

I feel better, I needed to vent alitte


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

just my :2c: , there is no reason for folks to own assault rifles. We are not a third world country in need of militias. We do not need to make AW's even more readily available to thugs. I worry enough about whether or not the shitbird has a handgun, not an AK47.

I do realize that if they really want one of these, they will get 'em. But at least some control, even if barely effective, is better than none. Granted in Mass the ban is still in place, but nationally dropping the AWB will make it much easier in other places to get these weapons in "the cycle"... 

Just my :2c:


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

We have the Brady bill, never going away. We have criminals that never cared about any of the gun laws that exist. If a fellon has a rifle, do you really think he's going to worry about if he puts a bayonet lug on it or if he has a flash suppressor.
As well do you care if a law abiding citizen has a semi-auto rifle?

But let us look at the heart of the matter:
NONE of the guns ever banned by the AWB were Assault weapons in the first place.
They were semi-automatic rifles. Assault weapons are military weapons that are fully automatic. The assault weapons ban was a marketing attempt at seeing if people could get "features" banned to specifically limit firearms.

What if we had an "assault ammo ban" all ammo used by the military and police or calibers of like type to military ammo, would be "banned" for civilian sale. I fthe ammo had no sporting purpose that should be banned too. Tthat would be....22 LR, that would be .38 special, 9mm, 40 S&W, 357 Mag, 5.56 (.223) 7.62 (308) almost ALL shotgun ammo, since the 5.56 and 7.62 share features with other "sporting" ammo...then they get banned too...
Then lets look at bb guns, any non lead BB's banned, any non match pellets banned...



RPD931 @ Thu 23 Sep said:


> just my :2c: , there is no reason for folks to own assault rifles. We are not a third world country in need of militias. We do not need to make AW's even more readily available to thugs. I worry enough about whether or not the shitbird has a handgun, not an AK47.
> 
> I do realize that if they really want one of these, they will get 'em. But at least some control, even if barely effective, is better than none. Granted in Mass the ban is still in place, but nationally dropping the AWB will make it much easier in other places to get these weapons in "the cycle"...
> 
> Just my :2c:


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

see my post from 09/14...


----------



## Dan H (Sep 22, 2004)

RPD931 @ Thu Sep 23 said:


> just my :2c: , there is no reason for folks to own assault rifles. We are not a third world country in need of militias.
> 
> Different people might have different reasons. What do I have in common with an extremist miltia man? Well I'm sure both of us would agree that the Constitution gives everyone the right to possess them or any other firearm. Our similarities will probably end soon after that  Now you can say that we are definately aren't in a third world country and that much has changed in over 200 years in this country, but the reason the 2nd amendment was written is still present today. When it was written people wanted the security that they are free to keep their arms an organize militias in the case of attack or for use if the goverment became tyranical. Their experience of English rule was fresh in their minds. Could our government today be considered tyranical? Although some militia man without cable TV up in the Tenn. mountains might disagree with me, I would have to save no. I don't think that is any reason for people to give up all there arms. I wouldn't want to go live in a society like Russia were citizens cannot have firearms, only the military. Well who would have guessed it, the criminals still have guns. What kind of security does that leave to the citizens?


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2004)

Not sorry to see the ban gone, it did NOT prevent crime, it just kept the law abiding citezens from owning them.


----------



## ryan933 (Oct 3, 2003)

Very glad to see it go! By definition, criminals do not observe the law. Therefore, this law was no deterrent to gun crime, and served only to weaken our second amendment rights!

Ryan


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

RPD931 @ 23 Sep 2004 18:29 said:


> just my :2c: , there is no reason for folks to own assault rifles. We are not a third world country in need of militias. We do not need to make AW's even more readily available to thugs. I worry enough about whether or not the shitbird has a handgun, not an AK47.
> 
> *They were and are still available. MAK-90's/SKS/AR-15 etc only had aestetic changes like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs removed for civilian sales. THATS IT!!!!! From 1994 until now, there was really no "BAN" Please wake up!!!!* :shock:
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2004)

RPD931 @ Thu 23 Sep said:


> just my :2c: , there is no reason for folks to own assault rifles. We are not a third world country in need of militias. We do not need to make AW's even more readily available to thugs. I worry enough about whether or not the shitbird has a handgun, not an AK47.
> Just my :2c:


What? Are you kiddin? Screw the militia argument of the Second Amendment. How about the "people". Face it RPD, you are responsible for your own protection, NOT your government. The supreme court says so! You need to fall off the "AW's even more readily available to thugs" _*MYTH*_ get educated and realize that "thugs" are not concerned with any laws. D'oh!!!!!
:shock:


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Too right! I do not own any assault rifles: unless you count my 1903 or M1....just for those of you who have not been paying attention: an assault rifle is a rifle capable of automatic operation; inre: a rifle capable of discharging more than one round with a single pull of the trigger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock: 

My 1903 and M1 were the 'assault' weapons of their day...why not a ban on those

LOSERS! There are thousands of 'assault weapons' in homes all over Switzerland...Swiss citizens are required to be in the National Guard...and they keep their weapons at home: I don't have the stats, but I would be happy to see their stats about numbers killed by 'assault weapons'...if they are excessive (more than ours), I will shut-up.

Didn't think so...genius.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

HEY! Bring them over and let's do some shooting!



dcs2244 @ Wed 29 Sep said:


> Too right! I do not own any assault rifles: unless you count my 1903 or M1....just for those of you who have not been paying attention: an assault rifle is a rifle capable of automatic operation; inre: a rifle capable of discharging more than one round with a single pull of the trigger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:
> 
> My 1903 and M1 were the 'assault' weapons of their day...why not a ban on those
> 
> ...


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

Strict gun laws only make it tough for honest law abiding people people to own firearms, which is our God given right under the Constitution.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

I don't think any of these facts are in dispute:

1. The so-called "assault weapons ban" had absolutely no effect on crime or deterred any crime from being committed. This is according to the DOJ. True assault weapons, by definition, are select fire and they have been strictly controlled since 1934. 
2. The only effect that "gun control" has on anything is making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy and/or possess firearms. 
3. While possessing a firearm is a constitutional right, it is subject to far more stringent controls than driving, which is legally recognized as being a privledge, not a right, and kills far more americans every year than firearms (over 40,000 according to the NTSB). If most americans had to go through the same rigid controls to get a driver's license as they did to get a license to carry, most probably wouldn't bother to get driver's license.
4. In every state that had a "right to carry concealed" law passed recently, crime has gone down.
5. Police officers have a 5 to 10 minute response time in most areas, sometimes a lot longer. Would you trust this if some criminal was trying to break into your home with your loved ones? Especially if you're not home? 

The recent move (in the last 20 years) to stronger gun control is just another consequence of americans trying to put off yet another responsibility (in this case delf defense) on to another's shoulders. Why be responsible for anything, its always someone else's fault. Most americans don't even vote.


----------



## RedWaterMan (Dec 19, 2005)

You can't create a precedent for something that can involve so much variation. JoninNH is right, the legal system needs the ability to utilize it's discretion in these matters because there are often circumstances that are unpredictable.

I am for gun control in the aspect that it forces people to give value and respect to their ownership of the weapon and (for the most part) prevents them slipping into the wrong hands, but I am against controlling the judicial system because that's not Congress' job, they're legislators (law makers, not law interpreters).


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

_this was borrowed from another web page_

Most experts recommend military and para-military semi-automatic rifles as the epitome of versatility. The governments of the world have spent millions of dollars developing rifles that can operate under extreme harsh conditions and still deliver good performance. That is why I generally recommend military rifles when you have a choice.


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

Not a bad response for a year old dead thread.


----------

