A friend recently told me that, within the last 2 or 3 years, congress has come “within a few votes” of banning ALL semi-automatic weapons. I tend to doubt this, as I don’t recall this being front page news, as I’m sure it would have been.
I have a wager riding on this that would make me join the NRA if this is found to be true, and knowing no larger group of political mavens, I’ve decided to ask the SDMB. So, verdict? Do I have to join up with Charlton and his cronies?
FYI, California set a ban on many semi-automatic weapons. There is a deadline to register those already owned, but owners are resistant to register. I believe the deadline is just a few months away and there have only been a few registrations made.
IMO, they aren’t neccesary, but should be protected at least.
I don’t doubt that it is true, because it’s too ridiculous not to be. Keep in mind that Congress has come within a few votes of doing all sorts of stupid things, some of which might be FAR more objectionable to most people than banning semi-autos. Banning any kind of gun always seemed pretty stupid to me. Any gun is deadly. Things like this give a lot of credence to the NRA’s theory that our 2nd Amendment rights are being chipped away at little by little.
I agree, Democritus. And you’ve given me another reason not to move to California, where people can’t read well enough to understand the Constitution.
The answer is no, since the Republican Revolution there has been no serious gun legislation that has even made it out of committee - at least in the Federal legislature.
If a Democratic House and Senate are voted in this year, it is, IMO, possible, but unlikely until after a few more years of media-sponsored lies and terror tactics.
Oops! I shouldn’t have said that last part…
I wouldn’t say “lies,” Anthracite. I think “misrepresentations, half-truths, oversimplifications, and sensationalism” is a more descriptive way to put it.
I know, I just wanted to tease a couple people out there. 
check out this update at Snopes.com
“misrepresentations, half-truths, oversimplifications, and sensationalism” = lies
-Luckie
I think Lizard was being fecetious, Luckie.
I’ve received some information from the NRA saying that bills along these lines have been presented, but none of them ever came close to seeing the light of day. There were no cites, so take it with a grain of salt. But, I see no reason not to believe that somebody has proposed this at one time or another. If it had come “within a few votes”, the NRA would have been all over it and I would have received the info. Hope that helps.
In 1994, there was a vote to ban assault weapons. I think that’s a narrower category than all semi-automatic weapons, but it may be what you’re referring to. IIRC, the California ban also only covers assault weapons and it came more or less in response to someone (another kid or an adult? my memory is hazy) coming into a schoolyard and blowing away a dozen kids or so before he could be stopped. I don’t want to slip into a debate here, but is there any legitimate reason someone would need to own, for an example, an Uzi? It would have to be something better than, “Well if we let them take our machine guns now, they’ll want our pistols later,” to balance against those dead children.
Yep…that would be Grover Cleveland Elementary School, where I used to attend Boy Scout meetings back in the day. The shooter (adult, BTW) targeted Southeast Asian kids, mostly, and killed 6 (?) plus a teacher.
Just for informational purposes, a machine gun is not a semi-automatic weapon. A semi-automatic weapon can only fire one round with one pull of the trigger. An auto-pistol, submachine gun, etc., can fire as many rounds as the magazine holds by holding down the trigger.
BTW, do you how many crimes have been committed in the US with fully-automatic, Federally licensed private owners of Uzis? I believe over 64 years, the number is “0”?
“Assault weapons” had a completely different legal definition before 1994 - IIRC the Federal “legal” definition of an “assault weapon” was a fully-automatic weapon currently in use by the armed forces. All of the guns banned in 1994 were semi-automtaic weapons used for target shooting, self-defense, and hunting that were re-classified as “assault weapons” legally.
And what made them assault weapons? One thing the anti crowd likes to sweep under the rug and pretend doesn’t exist is the fact that many of the “assault weapons” banned in 1994 are functionally identical to many other semi-automatic weapons that were not on the list. Why? Because the goal of the Democrats was painfully simple - ban “ugly” guns to create a mdeia sensation, but not enough guns (at that point) to affect the average American).
The Ruger Mini-14 is functionally identical to the Colt AR-15, and the Ruger Mini-30 functionally identical to the AK-47. Hell, my Mini-14 and AR-15 HBAR can even swap magazines! Yet, The Mini-14 was not banned and in fact was specifically exempted because it is owned by a large number of Americans, and thus would have upset many more people. And, because it’s not an “ugly gun”.
And you say you don’t want to slip into a debate, but your post is obviously trying to make a debate - please join us all over in GD if you like, you’ll always be welcome.
A legitmate reason for private citizens to own an Uzi, and by Uzi I’m assuming you mean any fully automatic weapon? Sure. For the same reason we have a 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment. To overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive government.
Uncle Beer: You’re right. That is perilously close to a debate!
I don’t want to send this thread to GD. Mostly because I rarely go there. So let’s look at it this way: Greg asked a legitimate question, so I’ll answer it (in a General spirit, of course!).
There are very few things we “need”. It’s a matter of choice. I don’t “need” to wear a Rolex. It makes me a potential crime victim. But I choose to wear it because I like it. I don’t need a fully-automatic Uzi – and I don’t own one. (BTW: Uzis are somewhat rare in this country compared to other firearms.) But let’s say I feel like spending lots of money on expensive ammunition. I’m not going to go out and harm people with it. Anything… a car, an airplane, a baseball bat, e-mail… can be used to harm people. We have laws to punish wrong-doers.
So in answer to your GQ, it’s a matter of choice.
It was perilously close to a debate, but it’s wasn’t one. I support the right to bear arms, because it’s in the Constitution. That’s enough for me. I don’t think the right extends indefinitely though. You can’t have your own tank, or cruise missles, or even hand grenades or bazookas. My question, then, was not intended to provoke anger or debate. I just want to know if there are any reasons to classify assault weapons with sidearms and hunting rifles rather than with military grade firearms.
Greg,
It’s a good question, but the problem is (I guess) one of semantics. Your question says assault weapons, but as any card-carrying NRA member knows, the banning of assault weapons was, on paper, the restriction of 19 types of “assault weapons”. The reality of it was a ban on approximately 300 types of weapons because of the definitions used. Pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug (drive by stabbing, anyone?), etc., which in combination make up most of your assault weapons, were included even if the weapon had only one of these characteristics. When assault weapon and semi-automatic weapon are used in the same sentence, then my skeet and trap guns are now eligible for the banned list.
Actually, you can have your own tank. You just aren’t allowed to have a functioning cannon on it. Cannon shells, bazooka projectiles, cruise missiles and hand grenades (and we may as well throw in the hyperbolic Nuclear Bomb) have something in common: They can kill more people than the intended target. The damage they cause is indiscriminate. Firearms on the other hand must be pointed at the target to hit it. This is true if the firearm is a hunting rifle, a shotgun, or The Dreaded So-Called Assault Rifle.
That’s where I personally draw the line. If you have to single out a target, it shouldn’t be banned. If it causes collateral damage (as would a Bomb), then there should be controls on it.
There is only one rifle that I know of that fires a projectile that can change its course. It’s the one that killed Kennedy.