I’m against gun control, but it seems to me that a ban based purely on cosmetics shouldn’t be that big an issue. What difference does it make if they ban a gun if you can get one that is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL that has wood instead of black plastic? Is the look that important? I’d be more upset if the ban was based on the functionality of weapons. If I can still get a semi-automatic rifle, I don’t care so much what it looks like.
It’s a wrong-headed move, but it looks like the ban is targeting weapons that are not normally used for hunting and are preferred by people who want to have a weapon that looks like a military weapon. This sucks for collectors, but it does seem like such weapons are preferred by criminals and people into the gangster culture. You don’t hear rappers bragging about their .30-06s, but they do love their AKs.
I think if you look up the statistics you will find that rifles, in general, make up a tiny percentage of all gun crimes, and that so-called “assault weapons” make up a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of all gun crimes.
If gangsters are using AK-47s they’re probably actual AK-47s - Russian-made, selective fire (capable of full-auto) and sold on the black market. All the semi-automatic variants of the AK are specially built by US firms that incorporate a certain number of American parts into them, and they are not fully automatic, and in all likelihood they are used in barely any crime.
ETA - also, it’s not functionally identical if it’s made of plastic. Plastic makes a weapon much lighter and easier to handle than wood. Pistol grips and vertical foregrips - another thing that the AWB targets - are another ergonomic feature that make the gun more comfortable to hold. These are NOT functionally the same as a wood-stocked rifle in the same caliber.
You’re grossly underestimated the number of regular gun enthusiasts who love their AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47 clones. Jim Zumbo, a hunting writer, managed to effectively end his career because of the backlash when he referred to such rifles as terrorist rifles that the hunting community should distance itself from.
Keep in mind, the AK-47 look alikes that we get here might officially be put together in the United States, but they come from overseas, mostly Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and what was once Yugoslavia. They bring in all the parts, and build it on a US made receiver. They also add a US trigger group, and usually a gas piston to bring up the parts count enough. (This rule is still in effect after the AWB; not sure why)
That said, I think the AWB was supposed to dry up the source of AK parts. I don’t think they were so stupid as to think that no flash suppressors and bayonet lugs was going to cut down on crime. Rather they figured since the parts kits had these features, we wouldn’t see them around anymore. What they didn’t count on, is the fact that it pretty cheap to pay some guy in a Bulgarian factory to simply grind off the lugs and barrel threads. Prices did go up a little, as I recall, so maybe the bill “worked”. For some broke ass crack dealer, the cost differential between a $200 gun and a $400 gun might be a pretty big deal.
I won’t lose any sleep if Obama wins, but I’ll sure as shit make sure I have my Krinkov built and registered (it’s an SBR) before his first 100 days are up.
I doubt it. Such a gun would be worth upwards of $20,000 to someone with a permit if it were transferable. Maybe Russian gangsters are smuggling them, but I’ve never heard of any being found. Most select fire illegal (non-transferable) AKs here were probably snuck back from 'Nam as trophies, if there are even any to begin with. I think “gangsters” for the most part are poor schmucks who would be happy to have a WASR. There are a very few reports of fully auto AKs used in crimes, but it always turns out to be a hack job illegal home brew modification, which has been illegal since long before the AWB. That’s what those two clowns in the LA bank robbery a while back did.
If they ban guns based on misinformation, deception and looks, what is next? How about those super accurate sniper rifles? You know, the ones with the bolt things and scopes on them… :rolleyes:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT HUNTING! Jesus Christ Almighty… There is no provision in the Constitution for hunting yet it keeps coming back and coming back. I rarely hunt, yet I have several of the “bad” guns. Give me a cite that shows that these weapons are preferred by criminals (here is a hint, you wont find one). If you want to seriously target guns used by criminals, target the handguns. I’ll fight you on that too but at least it is a genuine argument.
I’m not saying a ban based on cosmetics is reasonable, just that it’s not as bad as a ban based on functionality. If I wanted to reduce gun violence or the possibility of mass-killings through gun bans without totally banning access to firearms, I would ban all semi-automatic weapons, all pistols capable of firing more than one or two rounds without reloading, and reduce the allowable magazine capacity on all other weapons to one or two shots. I’d prohibit weapons that allowed you to replace the magazine with a larger one, and prohibit the carrying of more than one firearm (so you don’t have people circumventing the reload needs by going pirate-style). Then I could claim that it was still possible to hunt, still possible to defend your home, and if you had a pressing need to carry a weapon for self-defense you could get a permit for a two-shot pistol.
Now, I don’t believe any personal firearms should be prohibited except maybe restrictions on violent felons from having them, and even allow larger weapons to be available to people willing to go through a screening process to make sure crazies don’t end up with artillery pieces, but I live in a world with restricted firearms, and the assault weapons ban seems pretty meaningless to me, as long as you exclude the slippery slope argument. It’s hard for me to get too worked up over it as it doesn’t really apply to me.
pssst! “Sensible” is the anti-gun code-word for “death from a million cuts.”
I consider it a step in the right direction, but Sen. Obama is still “one step forward, one million steps backwards” in the eyes of most gun rights advocates (Hell! Anyone!) who cares to pay attention to such mundane things like actual voting records.
Which I personally think is a more accurate barometer of a candidate’s “potential” for higher office than any mere words coming from their pie hole.
Just a Scientific Wild-Assed Guess from a redneck hick out in “flyover country” (you know, one of those bitter, angry white guys clinging to his guns and religion): He’s a dumbass?
I am NOT pathological.
Retract your statement, good sir, or I’ll meet you at dawn with a full supersoaker.
I am not a knee-jerk opponent to any gun control law put forth.
But I do demand that it has a clearly stated goal, and a reasonably logical way of achieving it spelled out in the wording of the law. Then it needs to pass Congress without some midnight session tacking on a few addendums and provisos (like a certain supposed “gun rights” Bill had happen to it on the mid-80s).
So far, by far the most I’ve ever heard has boiled down to, “If we ban it, it’ll go away.”
Yeah, sure. Worked great for booze, cooze, and drugs, didn’t it?
All bans are equally bad, especially those that are as disingenuous as the AW ban.
And when someone realizes that your pump shotgun loaded full of buckshot can blow out more .30 cal projectiles faster that any AK clone, or AR15, and all pump guns are banned, will you be concerned then? My point is that if those idiots feel that banning guns based solely upon the way they look is a great idea, what happens when they finally listen to what we have been saying for years and decide to ban the guns that are actually used in crimes? I prefer to be concerned about it now. I don’t see how one can exclude the SS argument.
My pump shotgun is loaded #4 buck, so it’s .24 cal projectiles. I can put 162 of them in my target in 6 seconds, and it’s in no way threatened by the assault weapons ban. Let them waste their time on guns I have no intention of owning.
I don’t think you get it. If they want to ban guns because they look bad, will you be concerned when they figure out that your pump gun really is dangerous and ban worthy? After all, scary looking guns were easy enough to ban and now there is precedent.
These debates always end in nonsense and rhetoric, and this is my final post because I refuse to engage in that sort of thing, but I leave you with this to ponder in light of the quoted post.
Well you asked why a Democrat politician might support the AWB without any intent of taking all your guns away. And that’s the answer. Because there are a lot of people out there who think like me, who think that while the AWB is a stupid piece of legislation (if they even think about it at all), also think that other issues outweigh it in determining which candidates to support.
As a person interested in politics, I am pretty certain a law banning handguns and most rifles from private ownership doesn’t stand a hope of passing. And as a lawyer, I am pretty certain that a law banning handguns/most rifles won’t pass constitutional muster, especially not in Virginia. Therefore I am not overly worried about a slippery slope, even if I believed the politician espousing the AWB wanted to take away all guns.
So if I have a choice between a Democrat who supports the asinine AWB, and a Republican who opposes it, but also opposes abortion rights, homosexual rights, the separation of church and state, and who is willing to eviscerate the other parts of the Bill of Rights in order to “protect” me from terrorism, then I am going to support the Democrat, and feel pretty comfortable that the Springfield XD I am looking to purchase will still be available.
Sorry, but for me, and many, many other people who believe in gun rights, there are other issues out there too.
I think what you quoted is right, Airman Doors. Any bans and regulations are just chipping away at our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Just because I don’t hunt, shoot .50 cal, or have a pistol grip on my shotgun doesn’t mean they’re bad things. It’s not the details of the guns that are the problem, especially details like bayonets.
Cool, so when they’ve banned those guns you have no intention of owning, and gun crime hasn’t significantly decreased, so they come after your guns next because they can (theoretically) “fire 27 rounds/second - faster than a machine gun!” and can (theoretically) kill 162 people in 6 seconds, and I, who am no longer a gun owner because they banned the guns I owned, say “Who gives a fuck” when you ask me for help, you’ll be OK with that? Because all hunters who don’t give a shit about the rest of the gun owners are doing is making sure they’ll be eaten last.
I don’t think it’s very accurate. The events in Nazi Germany took place over the course of a few years. The government has been banning classes of weapons since the 1920s and they still have not been able to restrict ownership of anything except a few weapons that have little practical use outside of warfare, and we have had some bans applied and then later removed. This slippery slope seems to have plenty of friction, and we’re even able to make a few steps uphill from time to time.
I don’t approve of gun bans but I don’t think gun control is that important of an issue as the gun banners have not been very successful, and unless there is a drastic change in American culture, it looks like they never will be. I’m more concerned about issues that directly effect me and that the lawmakers seem to be making real progress on. I’ll worry when they start banning weapons for reasons other than cosmetics.
When they try to ban weapons like hunting rifles, pistols, and shotguns, there will be a sizable contingent of people who were ambivalent about assault weapon bans who will rise up in opposition, and no politician will risk it. People like the American Hunters and Shooters Association will be seen as more practical and politically important than the NRA.
So as long as your shit is not threatened, you don’t give a fuck about the rest of us? Correct? Thanks for the support, fudd.
Considering the AHSA is endorsing the candidates who will be directly responsible for any bans that come down, I fail to see how they will then rise to the top in the pro gun rights crowd to defend against any future bans. If I am wrong please explain your logic.
For me, that’s not true. I’ll oppose stuff like the AWB, but it isn’t a defining issue for me. There are a hell of a lot of things a hell of a lot more important to me than that.
I’ve got a greater degree of confidence than you that the political system, public opinion, the court system, and the consitutions of the Union and the individual states will protect core gun rights.
I can put 162 of them in my target in 6 seconds, and it’s in no way threatened by the assault weapons ban. Let them waste their time on guns I have no intention of owning.