# Renew the Assault Weapons ban. I dare ya! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 12, 2004, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127 "2004-09-12T12:18:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/41 "2004-09-13T14:06:17Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Last time I checked Al Qaeda hasn´t invaded the USA, Iraq is still occupied and Chechen rebels haven´t defeated the Russians… pesky, murderous and annoying like hell, but those “militias” haven´t shown the capability of defeating a modern military. Also, revolting against the government will always be illegal anyway. So what the fuck does the right to bear arms have to do with resisting the government? I support the rights of gun owners. I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own weapons. I wouldn’t own a gun myself because I’m quite a pacifistic person, but I would never think of imposing that philosophy on others. However, the “we need guns so we can resist tyranny” argument has always struck me as stupid. Resisting tyranny is always by its very definition illegal, so why quibble over the details? But rather than pass and repeal endless gun control laws, I think we should just bite the bullet and amend the Second Amendment so it clearly defines the “right to bear arms.” After all, I doubt even Charlton Heston thinks individual citizens have the right to bear nuclear, chemical, and biological “arms.” If we agree as a society that all citizens should have the right to bear firearms, or daggers, or weapons with the primary function of self-defense, we should at least put that into our Constitution so the courts have a reasonable standard to go by. Not like it will happen anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/42 "2004-09-13T14:18:28Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > I recall that after the OKC bombing some people wanted to put chemical tag agents into the fertilizer. This would make it easy for the FBI to trace where any the fertilizer was bought. (after it was used in a bomb) The NRA opposed this action as an attack on the second admendment. You don’t by any chance have a cite for that, do you? If they opposed it at all I find it VERY hard to believe that they opposed it on 2nd Amendment grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/43 "2004-09-13T16:29:12Z")
I too would like a cite for the NRA officially fighting taggants in fertilizer on 2nd Amendment “grounds”, or any other. Sounds to me like typical anti-NRA propaganda, but I could be wrong… Here’s some related info: “Most ways of tracking explosives impractical, task force finds” : [http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9803/06/t\_t/bomb.tracing/](http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9803/06/t_t/bomb.tracing/) The Study: [http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas\_pub/taggant/98/main\_report.htm](http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/taggant/98/main_report.htm) Here’s a note regarding the NRA putting pressure to exclude gunpowder, NOT fertilizer from the study: [http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn\_arch/9\_14\_96/bob1.htm](http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/9_14_96/bob1.htm) > [@](#): > > Gun users, however, are concerned that tagged gunpowder would be unstable and therefore unsafe for use in bullets. Pressure from lobbying groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) excluded gunpowder from the study that was included in the antiterrorism bill, although they say they wouldn’t object to a study by an “independent agency.” Another bill, passed by the House in July and ready for Senate consideration this month, provides for such a study. The last major government report on taggants, more than a decade ago, concluded that leaving out gunpowder would take the teeth out of any tagging program. Senator “I hate guns” Schumer’s site has this to say: [http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press\_releases/2004/PR02807.Taggats080804.pf.html](http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/2004/PR02807.Taggats080804.pf.html) The article is very carefully worded. Key points: > [@](#): > > Taggants, fought by NRA in past, let law enforcement identify source of bomb materials and serve as deterrent as well But he doesn’t say fertilizer taggants, only “taggants”. He’s being deceptive. > [@](#): > > These reports – as well as bills proposed by President Bill Clinton based on Schumer’s legislation – were strongly opposed in Washington by the gun lobby. The gun lobby claimed that adding taggants to explosives like the black powder used in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing incident added bulk and increased the dangers to gun enthusiasts who made their own bullets and explosives. Here he’s not being deceptive, but there’s no mention of the “gun lobby” opposing fertilizer taggants. In fact, he himself seems to think that the “gun lobby” should have no opposition to taggants in fertilizer, because he goes on further to say: > [@](#): > > Schumer said today that after Congress returns to Washington from its August recess, he will introduce legislation that will not address the black powder and explosives of interest to the gun lobby, but will… I suppose it’s possible that someone somewhere said that the NRA was opposed to taggants in fertilizer and ammonium nitrate specifically, but it’s not clear. And I don’t think it’s been any “official” stance, if so. I’ve never heard of it before. Una ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/44 "2004-09-13T17:16:43Z")
> [@RTA](#): > > Does anyone wish to start a pool on when we’ll have our first assault weapon freakout - a multiple slaying here in the USA? How about, Election day, over/under? (I’ll say, under.) This is so lame. Even before the federal ban went into effect, most people weren’t harmed or killed by “assault weapons”. They were and are killed, harmed, or maimed by handguns. Most crime isn’t and wasn’t committed with assault weapons, either, it was done with handguns-except for the rare case of violence or armed robbery which has been totally glorified by our nightly news stations with an anti-gun agenda. I don’t own an “assault rifle”-my collection tends to lean towards big and loud handguns. I don’t plan on owning one even if California were to repeal it’s anti-“assault weapon” ban; mainly because I DO find it to be excessive. But I do understand why a gun collector would own one, and I don’t knock them for it. Last year when there was some chatter about the NRA and the assault weapons ban, they had an ATF agent on CNN demonstrating the fire power of a so-called “assault weapon”. Except, instead of being an honest display, he decided to use a fully-automatic AK-47 for his demonstration-not a semi-automatic weapon banned by the act. Flame on… Sam ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/45 "2004-09-13T17:40:53Z")
> [@](#): > > FWI, an AR-15 (which was on the banned list) is a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic only, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle of .233 caliber with a 20" barrel. The Mini-14 on the other hand (which was not on the banned list) is a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic only, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle of .233 caliber with an 18½" barrel. For the record, these are both .223 caliber weapons, not .233. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/46 "2004-09-13T19:04:03Z")
**Ale:** > [@](#): > > Cool, can I get an M-60?, or a Howitzer; just for hunting honest! Yes, you can. Submit fingerprint cards and facial photos, along with the relevant applications for the required license, to the ATF. Undergo a comprehensive background investigation, roughly comparable to getting s SECRET level security clearance. Have your local law enforcement chief write a letter of recommendation for you to the Federal Government. In 6 months to a year, you _may_ receive a license allowing you to purchase (and sell) M-60 Machine Guns and Howitzers. Now, when you actually go to buy said weapons, fill out the approriate transfer documents (I think both seller and buyer have to fill them out) pay the administrative fees, and then wait anywhere from 90 days to a year for approval from the federal government to make said exchange. If you _ever_ take them hunting, they _will_ be taken away. Along with your house, your car, all of your bank accounts, and your freedom. You will get some of your freedom back after a few years; don’t count on voting, holding a profession requiring a license, or legally owning a firearm ever again. What a fucking idiot. :rolleyes: **JRDelerious;** well said. I disagree about the hi-cap mag, but well said anyway. **RTA:** > [@](#): > > However, the people who feel they NEED an assault weapon, that they absolutely HAVE TO HAVE one … A stable society which seeks to reduce gun violence can do without that element. Do you actually read what people write here? Or are the big words too hard for you, but you still feel the need to contribute some useless drivel anyway? What part of **Johhny’s** post don’t you understand? > [@](#): > > Which indicates that you do not have sufficient data to make a coherent argument. > > FWI, an AR-15 (which was on the banned list) is a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic only, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle of .223 caliber with a 20" barrel. The Mini-14 on the other hand (which was **not** on the banned list) is a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic only, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle of .223 caliber with an 18½" barrel. Bolding mine, caliber corrected. Go through that word-by-word, and parse its meaning. One was banned, one was not. One was not available during the Ban, one was. Anyone who wanted to go bonkers (totally nuts!) and whack everyone in their office car-pool during the period of the ban had easy access to hardware just as effective as the “scary death-machines” on the banned list. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/47 "2004-09-13T19:59:14Z")
> [@](#): > > **GaWd** said: > This is so lame. Even before the federal ban went into effect, most people weren’t harmed or killed by “assault weapons”. They were and are killed, harmed, or maimed by handguns. Nitpick. They were and are killed, harmed or maimed by _criminals with_ handguns. > [@](#): > > Except, instead of being an honest display, he decided to use a fully-automatic AK-47 for his demonstration-not a semi-automatic weapon banned by the act. Ah, the ATF, such a paragon of integrity. No wonder the media never gets it right. The ATF and the Brady Bunch continually feed them lies. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/48 "2004-09-13T20:45:30Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > \*\*Ale:\*\*In 6 months to a year, you _may_ receive a license allowing you to purchase (and sell) M-60 Machine Guns and Howitzers. > > Now, when you actually go to buy said weapons, fill out the approriate transfer documents (I think both seller and buyer have to fill them out) pay the administrative fees, and then wait anywhere from 90 days to a year for approval from the federal government to make said exchange. This is somewhat incorrect and very misleading. First, there is no such thing as a license to own a machine gun. The machine gun must be registered to the transferee (the owner). This is not a trivial point. You cannot get approval then go shopping, it’s really the other way around. The procedure usually starts with the prospective owner finding a machine gun for sale either from a machine gun dealer or to have the dealer transfer the machine gun from a seller. In virtually all cases the first step is paying for the gun. Then the dealer provides the BATFE form four with the serial number of the piece and all information about the transferee. Then follows obtaining fingerprint cards and photos, getting appropval from local LE (usually county sheriff) and submitting that to ATF with a $200 money order for the tax stamp. When all that is approved the form is returned to the transferee who taked it to the dealer who then fills out a 4473, the familiar yellow form used whenever a dealer sells any type of firearm. It has been against the law to register new machine guns since 1986. This means the inventory in the regsitry is a fixed number so the market price of machine guns has far outstripped inflation. There is a provision for amnesties that allow someone to register uncle Joe’s war trophy but I don’t know if that has happened in the last 18 years. Howitzers can be registered but they are a different category, destructive devices, which includes grendades, bombs, explosive shells and certain types of drum magazine shotguns. I understand it’s very difficult to get a transfer for a DD but people do own them. This December there is a show hosted by Small Arms Review in Phoenix that will display several such weapons. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/49 "2004-09-13T20:49:06Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Nitpick. They were and are killed, harmed or maimed by _criminals with_ handguns. Can you nitpick a nitpick? Not all of those hurt, killed or maimed were done so my criminals. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that there is a huge percentage of accidental shootings and heat-of-the-moment shootings that occur by law-abiding citizens. Our anti-gun environment engenders ignorance about firearms which leads to an inordinate amount of these types of shootings. > [@](#): > > Ah, the ATF, such a paragon of integrity. No wonder the media never gets it right. The ATF and the Brady Bunch continually feed them lies. Definitely. I’d hazard another guess that 99% of all citizens think that the assault weapon ban bans rapid-fire, automatic weapons. Of course this is patently untrue, but fear and ignorance abounds in regards to weapons knowledge and safety. Sam ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/50 "2004-09-13T21:06:59Z")
Thanks, **Padeye.** I was paraphrasing from the one time I had been told by a dealer what had to be done to buy and sell fully automatic weaponry. But, if there were differences in detail, we are the same in kind. You don’t just go into a gun store, plop down your cash and drivers license, and walk out with an M-60. The proponents of the AWB have strongly suggested that “military grade hardware” is now commonly available at your local Wal-Mart since the AWB lapsed at midnight. It just ain’t so. And whatever the case, you certainly can’t go deer hunting with them. Oh, and **pkbites:** You can tell the barrel-assed, doghnut-munching fuck-sticks in the front office that, because of their bold faced, unabashed lying through their teeth to get the AWB renewed, I will no longer be supporting them when they call me in October to renew my Fraternal Order of Police contributions. Sorry, bud. I support the job you folks do, and I would never wish harm on an honest cop out there doing the job and upholding the law. But if you folks (or your national mouthpieces) have to _lie_ to advance a political agenda, I can’t support you. It’s the sort of behavior I expect out of politicians and lawyers, and quite frankly, I expect a higher moral standard in my law enforcement. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/51 "2004-09-13T21:28:40Z")
> [@](#): > > **GaWd** said: > In fact, I’d hazard a guess that there is a huge percentage of accidental shootings and heat-of-the-moment shootings that occur by law-abiding citizens. Accidental not so many. Last I remember from the CDC, it was 831 per year. Also those ‘heat of the moment’ shootings? Those people ceased to be ‘law abiding’ the second they intentionally shot one. The point really was that a handgun doesn’t shoot anyone, a person does. > [@](#): > > Definitely. I’d hazard another guess that 99% of all citizens think that the assault weapon ban bans rapid-fire, automatic weapons. Of course this is patently untrue, but fear and ignorance abounds in regards to weapons knowledge and safety. And yet I read on CNN today that the AR-15 has exactly the same caliber and _rate of fire_ as the M-16. Since fucking when is 3 round burst the same as one pull, one round? ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/52 "2004-09-13T22:42:34Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Accidental not so many. Last I remember from the CDC, it was 831 per year. > > Also those ‘heat of the moment’ shootings? Those people ceased to be ‘law abiding’ the second they intentionally shot one. The point really was that a handgun doesn’t shoot anyone, a person does. Ok, wrong on the numbers, but still, not only criminals kill people, and that was my point. > [@](#): > > And yet I read on CNN today that the AR-15 has exactly the same caliber and _rate of fire_ as the M-16. > > Since fucking when is 3 round burst the same as one pull, one round? I believe that the AR-15 would be banned under the machinegun ban(or other legislation), and not the assault weapon ban. AR-15 clones are pretty much single round bursts, at least all of the ones coming through my office. No multi-shot burst shooting for most of these weapons. [just confirmed this with my boss, the gun lawyer-the AR-15 was outlawed by the machinegun ban, not the AWB] Sam ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/53 "2004-09-13T23:21:43Z")
Well, actually **GaWd,** yes, only criminals kill people. Even if they were John Q. Law-Abiding Citizen when they got their donuts and coffee at 7-11 that morning, when they went nuts at the late-afternoon board meeting and hosed the senior-VP with their Assault Weapon, they were criminals. Oh yeah; sometimes the government kills people, too. But that’s okay. Or maybe not. And I’m not sure if there is any such thing as “single round burst.” And: The AR-15 is outlawed? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/54 "2004-09-13T23:23:43Z")
Well, actually **GaWd,** yes, only criminals kill people. Even if they were John Q. Law-Abiding Citizen when they got their donuts and coffee at 7-11 that morning, when they went nuts at the late-afternoon board meeting and hosed the senior-VP with their Assault Weapon, they were criminals. Oh yeah; sometimes the government kills people, too. But that’s okay. Or maybe not. And I’m not sure if there is any such thing as “single round burst.” And: The [AR-15](http://www.bushmaster.com/) is outlawed? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/55 "2004-09-13T23:53:36Z")
The AR-15 was not banned. It was single shot semi-auto. I own one, and know this. There may be a 3-shot version of the AR-15 as a sub or alternate model for police use only but I am not aware of what that might be. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/56 "2004-09-13T23:59:00Z")
Ah, **Una,** I believe the “3-shot” version (burst?) is known as the M-16A2. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/57 "2004-09-14T00:02:17Z")
> [@](#): > > For the record, these are both .223 caliber weapons, not .233. Typographical error compounded by cut’n’paste. :o ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/58 "2004-09-14T00:02:48Z")
Hmm…upon dragging it out of the locker, it appears I own a “Sporter Match HBAR”, not an AR-15. I admit with respect to model designations I may not know what I’m talking about here. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/59 "2004-09-14T00:06:27Z")
The AR-15 is specifically outlawed in California. Colt addressed the banning by changint the name to the Colt Sporter and deleting the bayonet lug and flash supressor. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127/60 "2004-09-14T00:11:02Z")
I believe in general terminology, just about any semi-auto variant of the M-16 is called an AR-15, even if it’s an Oly. Arms PCR-99 (mine). Just like any photocopy is generally called a xerox, even if it’s not a Xerox ™. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-i-dare-ya/264127.md?page=4)