Assault Weapons Ban

An anonymous reader writes "With all the Constitutional arguments that appear on /., perhaps some readers might be interested in this BBC Article about the expiration of the Clinton assault weapons ban. Both presidential candidates have spoken in favor of it, but no one is willing to vote to keep it."

Comments

One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[Skyshadow]

See, the best part about paying for Slashdot is that I see articles like this coming and have time to don my aesbestos underoos.

This is one of those issues which wouldn't be complicated if we could sit down and work out a reasonable comprimise, but of course that's not how we work in America anymore. Gotta stick with either-or's, and the other side are a bunch of wackos or nutcases. But, even though I know it's gonna get my ass flamed, I'll take a swing at it. I'm not scared. I got my aesbestos underoos on.

Obviously guns don't cause people to shoot each other, there are more complex reasons for it. That said, however, it's the access to high-capacity weapons (like the ones that were banned) that enables these folks to go out and kill half their highschool. Preventing gun makers from building these guns obviously makes it tougher for people to get them, which is a Good Thing -- nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.

But the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA, who don't let reason creep in on their paranoia about pinko lefties coming to take away their guns and kick over their stills or whatever. They, combined with a few people on the extreme left who don't think people ought to be able to hunt or whatever, combine to paralyze the whole damn debate.

But then we're down to the apparently unresolvable gun control back and forth. But that's okay, 'cause I got my fireproof underoos. Flame away.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwww...you started off soooo good. Then you broke down into spouting rethoric against the GPO, dead kids, and a baseless "Good Thing" claim.

I am not GOP
I am not a member of the NRA
I don't hunt

Not only should the Assult Ban be lifted, I should be able to buy a tank if I so wish. The Constitution didn't give the right of arms so that we could protect ourselves from rabid dear, steat thugs, or cheating wives...it was so we could protect ourselves from the tyranny of an oppressive government.

And a couple dozen dead kids is an acceptable loss for my freedom. A shame our society has become to pussified to fight to keep it.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[hackstraw]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States, in his address to 2nd Session of 1st Congress.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.

nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip

I personally do not own weapons, don't want to. But I feel a little better knowing that there are those paranoid bastards out in the woods packing fully automatic weapons waiting for the government to get "really evil".

I personally feel as though murder should be decriminalized. Think about how much crime would be reduced and law enforcement's job would be made so much easier.

Now let the flame wars begin...

Not yet. 1st, it is not normal to want to kill someone. Aside from a psychopath that cannot feel empathy or guilt, It is against any human's natural will to kill someone. Its instinct to grab someone who steps out into the road, its not because we were taught this. It goes against instinct to go against self and species preservation.

By legalizing murder, it would keep people in check. Basic reinforcement theory says that learing takes place when the reinforcer (reward or punishment) is near the action. If Johnny kills Billy, and Billy's friends or family think that it was wrong for Johnny to kill Billy. Well, Johnny better watch his back!

I personally feel as though the incidence of murder would actually decrease if it were legal. Just a theory.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[Zeinfeld]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.

The quotation is a well known fake. The typewriter font it is written in did not exist in Washington's day.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[ElForesto]

Perhaps you can explain away New Zealand or Switzerland. As Michael Moore figure out with Bowling for Columbine, it's not the guns.

The idea of citizens controlling the same weaponry as the military has several purposes.

• Firstly, it creates a strong defensive force for the country in case of invasion. That doesn't seem as likely now as it did then, but I'd rather have it than not have it, kinda like the 3rd Amendment.
• Secondly, it keeps the government in check by allowing the people the means to hold a revolution if necessary. England regularly rounded up swords in Scotland to keep it under its control (way back when, of course). Stalin did the same thing in many Soviet republics. China does it now. (I've heard they resort to using bombs now instead of guns. Much more safe, right?)
• Thirdly, there is much evidence in England and Australia that the outlaw of weapons invariably leads to the criminals being the only ones that own them. Their home-invasion rates are also through the roof.

Regardless of your personal opinion on what the law should be, the highest law of the land says we are a nation of gun owners. It is my belief that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment did not allow for all of the current laws and regulations concerning firearms. I personally have never submitted to a background check and refuse to participate in registration programs.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[0x0d0a]

SOrry, its not an either or thing. If you think weapons should be freely ownable, I should be able to own a nuclear bomb. The constitution doesn't forbid it, after all.

That's absurd. The Constitution was written in a time when nuclear bombs didn't *exist*. The game thory associated with the weapons of the times -- soldiers have rifles, citizens have rifles -- made guns a moderating influence. The game factors associated with nuclear bombs is *wildly* different from that associated with guns.

This is exactly the sort of thing reason that the judicial branch is allowed to interpret the Constitution -- to deal with technological advances.

For example, if the military gets the ability to run around with autonomous sniping helicopters and that becomes the main method of exerting military force, then civilians need to be able to have Stingers. That maintains the same balance as was present in the Constitution's authoring period.

Personally, I think civilians owning guns is not permitted by the constitution, and that militia means a state army. But I do think this is an area where compromises can be reached.

It's not a matter of compromise -- it can be *amended* if it's necessary to mean this. Please at least read and consider this -- the framers very clearly referred to an armed citizenry.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[Sevn]

I'm just REALLY GLAD that these laws have made it NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for the average citizen to get their hands on ASSAULT WEAPONS. I mean, if people could easily get a HIGH QUALITY, 2 MOA .308 CALIBER WEAPON REALLY CHEAP, or HIGH CAPACITYmagazines and ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITIONanyway, and all of this was COMPLETELY LEGAL, people would think these laws were FUCKING STUPID, ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS, and accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I know I'd be about pissed if my tax dollars were wasted on a war on a STYLE of weapon that accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but make people purchase the hunting rifle version of the guns that ONLY LOOKED more dangerous. Especially if YOU COULD BUY THE FUCKING THINGS ANYWAY. Man. I'd be even more pissed if you could do it over the Internet.

Thank You.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[Phillup]

Second point is that its only been illigal to make new guns, not illigal to own or even sell an existing gun.

Yep.

I never really felt the need to own a gun. But, when both the house and senate passed this bill (1994) I went out and bougt a shitload of the subject material before it got signed into law.

I felt that as soon as my government started limiting guns was about the time I needed to get real interested in owning some.

So now... the only guns I own... are assault weapons, purchased as a direct result of this laws passage.

Go figure.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[AuMatar]

And the constitution was written when assault weapons and handguns didn't *exist*. SO the same logic that bans nuclear bombs can be used to ban them.

The constitution is quite clear- well ordered militias are allowed arms. Well-ordered means regulated, militias are strate armys. So each of the 50 states can have their own army, if they wish, and arm them. The stuff people spout about it being so people can revolt is pure bull, its a moddern idea espoused by a few far right nutjobs in the past century. There is no constitutional right to citizens having guns, so what they can have is pure comprimise.

I'm actually not in favo of getting rid of itizens guns entirely. But stopping fellons from getting them easily, requiring registration, making resell illegal (unless reregistering), and limiting the amount of damage a gun can do before reloading are all decent comprimises.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[0x0d0a]

And the constitution was written when assault weapons and handguns didn't *exist*. SO the same logic that bans nuclear bombs can be used to ban them.

No, both assault weapons and handguns did exist in the Revolutionary War period. They weren't identical to the same as the guns we have today, true -- the concept of an automatic weapon didn't exist. An assault weapon was a bayonet-equipped musket. But it is necessary to provide someone an automatic weapon to keep them competitive with someone else with an automatic weapon. From the link above: Thomas Jefferson, for example, noted in 1803 that "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined, is therefore at all times important." He later commented that "...we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies."

The constitution is quite clear- well ordered militias are allowed arms.

I'll include another link from the site. Sure that's what they meant?

The stuff people spout about it being so people can revolt is pure bull, its a moddern idea espoused by a few far right nutjobs in the past century.

A *modern* idea? How do you explain the Revolutionary War? The writings of our Founding Fathers?

But stopping fellons from getting them easily, requiring registration, making resell illegal (unless reregistering), and limiting the amount of damage a gun can do before reloading are all decent comprimises.

Do you know how Castro took power? Cuba had a gun registry. Immediately after his coup, he took a collection of soldiers around and confiscated everyone's guns. If you have three guns registered and you don't turn over three guns, you were executed. He did so before people had time to organize. Then, he retained control of the military, which controlled the arms. Hence, control of the nation.

As for felons (people who have been convicted of a felony -- let's not try to isolate ourselves from them so that we can mistreat them without feeling bad about it) -- I could see limiting gun access to felons that have committed a felony using a *gun*. But how does it benefit anyone to have, say, an embezzler denied gun rights?

Heck, I'm still amazed that in most states, people in jail for committing a felony are denied *sufferage*. That's astounding (and a major coup for the Republican party -- drug crimes have eliminated much of the black vote).

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[RWerp]

I personally feel as though murder should be decriminalized. Think about how much crime would be reduced and law enforcement's job would be made so much easier.

I have never seen before as naive statement as this. After the Roman Empire collapsed, Europe was ruled by barbarian tribes' laws, which had the same opinion on murder as you do: that it was up to victims' family to deliver justice to the murderer. Firstly, they had vendetta. This was bad, because one murder resulted in a lot of further deaths (murderer, his relatives, some people from victims side, etc.) So the custom allowed to close the deal with a money transfer. Opportunity of earning lot of money made victims' families feel even more vindictive. Somehow, the chiefs and kings decided that it was not The Best Thing To Do (tm) and decided to take away the right to punish the murderers from the people and institute a "monopoly on punishment" as we have it today. You may say "just another example of Europen despotism", but this was a wise thing to do. When murder is not punished by the state, people will only feel safe when they have enough strong family to defend them. People with enough money would fell free to kill, and later bribe the victims' relatives to forgo vendetta. The society would reduce to small isolated outposts, distrustful of outsiders, because of the possibility of "hit and run" kill (if the guy flees, nobody else apart from the victims' family will risk his head to help to catch him).

If that does not convince you, go check examples of countries which today have no rule of law, where murder is not punished by the state. They are: Iraq, Chechenya, Afghanistan. Not the best places to live under the sun, eh?

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[lynx_user_abroad]

It is my pleasure to reply to a suitably armored poster.

...nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.

I always get annoyed when discussions about the Second Amendment come up and everybody immediately starts thinking about gunpowder. That's not what it's about.

The Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) is not a result of the wildly successful 1776 Sportsman's PAC. It wasn't meant to authorize individuals or groups to assassinate government officials in case they went insane. And it wasn't an attempt to ensure people could keep trading old flintlocks like so many Disco albums from the '70's.

It was an acknowledgement of a problem which faced the fledgling Colonies at the time, and is still quite relevant today.
You can pass a law making it illegal for people to keep and bear arms, but the people most dangerous to the survival of the Nation aren't going to listen. Because of this, we need to be sure this nation can survive even if we face an enemy that doesn't play by our rules. In this respect, outlawing guns works against us, in that it allows us to implement policies that, if the subjects had guns, we could never get away with. So instead we outlaw the practice of disarming the populace.

It's a way of saying to prospective government organizers: "if you want to run this place, you have to figure out how to make it work without taking away people's weapons. If you can't, you're not worthy of running this place. Period. Just like if you can't figure out how to run this place without favoring one religion over another, or shutting down the free press, or silencing your critics, or preventing peaceful assembly, or violating peoples privacy, or searching their homes, documents, things, or imprisoning people without charges or due process, or holding onto a suspect indefinitely without letting him see a lawyer, or torturing prisoners, or trying to make a Federal Law to ban powers reserved to the States, then just go away, because you're not up to the job. Sure, running the country is easy if you can do that stuff; but we have higher standards."

The rise of gun violence should not be seen as being caused by the availability of guns as much as it should be viewed as a failure of our society to remain violence free in the face of weapons availability. Don't curse the NRA, they're just the weather vane.

Should we read the Second Amendment to say that we should all be packing porta-nukes? For the safety of the Nation, of course. No. What it means is that we should strive to build a country that can survive even if our next door neighbor decides to pack a porta-nuke. Because, the reality of the world is (and will always be) that our next door neighbor just might be packing a porta-nuke.

In a world like this, the only possible way to be safe is to first make sure that nobody in their right mind would have a reason to light-up their porta-nuke, and second to understand that occasionally we will encounter a person or two who isn't in their right mind, who's going to kill a lot of people and cause a lot of damage (kinda like one of those Hurricanes) and that we better just be prepared for it to happen, and be prepared to deal with it when it does. An approch which says "we'll prevent a hurricane from ever happening here" can only be followed by "we don't need FEMA anymore, now do we", which shows clearly how backward such an approach is.

On September 11th, 2001, the U.S. saw an example of an attack which some claim represents a new kind of threat to this nation. But was also saw a flawless demonstration of the kind of defense against that threat which our Founding Fathers hoped we would deploy, and knew even then would be effective. On Flight 93, the attack failed, not because of some smart weapon posessed by the U.S. army, or because some airport screener matched-up two names on a No Fly list, but because of the democratic defense;

"assault" weapons

[jwriney]

Let's see how long this takes to get modded into the toilet.

It's funny that the article mentions that this law bans "military-style" weapons, because "style" is mostly what this law is about.

From the Beeb article - "The move means that ordinary citizens will be allowed to keep heavy assault weapons in their homes."

Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing.

Take a look at this page for some interesting info.

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

--riney

The ban didn't affect crime

[JohnnyX]

Commentators from both sides of the gun control debate have gone on record as saying that the Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an effect on crime. Certain guns were banned because of how they looked (folding stock, pistol grip, etc.), not because of how they functioned (all the banned guns fire the same caliber of bullets and at the same speed as ordinary hunting rifles). In addition, large rifles are not weapons of choice for committing crimes. Criminals prefer handguns.

The ban is sunsetting because it didn't really do any good and nobody is willing to risk their political career on renewing it. Even if it did come to a vote, I'm not sure Kerry would risk the swing state votes by voting to renew it. Bush would probably be forced to eat his words when it comes to signing it.

The whole thing is one great political football. The assault weapons I'm worried about are those that are being used on both sides of our failed war in Iraq, not the ones sitting in a gun collector's safe.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...common-sense...

Good riddance to bad law

[j. andrew rogers]

I can't wait to see this die, and I wish sunsetting would be used for all our laws.

The so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was nothing more than a feel-good measure that had nothing to do with crime or safety. All it did manage to do was annoy and/or piss-off people who buy or own guns. No appreciable benefit to any constituency, and a big downside to a rather sizeable constituency. It is no wonder that most politicians don't want to touch this issue, and Bush knew full well that it would never end up on his desk. If you ignore the Democrats in "safe States" like California, who can soapbox on this issue all day without consequences, it is a "third-rail" issue everywhere else whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.

The 1994 Congressional blood bath pretty much assures that gun control won't be touched again for a long time.

Crucial point

[bofkentucky]

Semi-Automatic: One pull of the trigger, one round fired
Burst/Select Fire: One pull of the trigger fires 2-5 rounds, the MP5N and M16A2 IIRC uses a three round burst
Fully Automatic: One pull of the trigger fires the gun until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammo.

The article linked is incorrect that the AK-47 (and other fully automatic and select fire weapons ie M16, L85, M60, Uzi's, FNFAL, AK-74 and their chinese ripoffs , HK G36, G21, G11, and G53 series rifles, Glock 17 pistols) were banned as a result of the Assault Weapons Ban, it is actully banned under the 1934 National Firearms Act. To posses these weapons today, you must have a Class III Federal Firearms Licence, which includes a massive federal background check, and pay $150 tax per weapon.

The assualt weapons only covers weapons that look different than a traditional deer rifle, there is no functional difference between a AR-15 (semi auto version of the M16) and a Deer rifle you could buy at walmart, they fire the same ammo (.223 Remington Magnum), as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Re:Crucial point

[photon317]

Your post is very informative for the relatively uninformed, but I have to point out that it is the Glock 18 pistol which is Full-Auto and thus illegal in the US due to the National Firearms Act (and still will be after the clinton gun ban expires). The Glock 17 is a the 18's semi-auto cousin, they look about the same and have interchangeable magazines, but the 17 is not full auto, and it a commonly owned pistol in the US. Glock specifically made slight changes in the dimensions of the parts in the 17 and 18 so that the parts aren't even interchangeable (for the most part).

For lots more info along the lines of the parent post, try the info you can link from www.awbansunset.com, which is a site dedicated to stopping all the mis-information the anti-gun crowd (and many of its unwitting supporters) spread.

Right to keep and bear arms....

[Daemin]

The reasoning behind granting everyone the unrestricted right to keep and bare arms was that a well armed populace is harder to oppress then an unarmed populous. I.e. he government should not have an excessive advantage over the populous in the amount of force at its disposal.

Carrying this to its logical conclusion, citizens should be allowed to posses all the weapons the government is allowed to; if they cannot, there is no way a popular revolt could succeed. The government, with its tanks and other large weapons, could easily roll over any revolt by citizens.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison,

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."

No, you do not need an assault weapon for hunting. But you do need it for personal defense against an oppressive government. That is the justification for allowing them to be possessed.

Aside from that, how am I going to kick the ass of a foreign army, marauding zombies, or invading aliens if I don't have a handy, insanely large supply of firepower?

Re:Finally!

[finkployd]

You could always deer hunt with an AK-47 (and variants), they are perfectly legal under the ban. Were you under the mistaken impression that the assualt weapons ban was actually effective at anything and not just political fluff with no substance?

Why do you think we have the 2nd Amendment?

[0x0d0a]

Why do you think we *have* the Second Amendment, crispyman?

It has nothing to do with sport weapons.

It is, very simply, to avoid oppressive regimes from ever dominating the citizenry by disarming them.

A gun that could only shoot non-humans would have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Gun rights were guaranteed specifically so that *people* could be shot as a last ditch resort.

I have no interest in ever owning a gun -- the benefits provided by the Second Amendment are present as long as enough citizenry own guns. However, I strongly support allowing citizenry access to assault weapons.

Note that guns simply guarantee Hobbsian "rough equality" between people and soldiers -- if soldiers have assault rifles, people also need assault rifles. I do *not* support allowing people to have weapons that allow massive amplification of killing power above that of a soldier as long as they strike first -- like bombs and the like. Assault weapons? Sure, I'd say that it's pretty much essential to allow people to have assault weapons.

Take a look at Switzerland -- they have almost no limitations on the weapons civilians can have. You want a howitzer, you can have one. And if you're a male and above a certain age, you *must* own a rifle -- you're considered part of the militia. As a result (even aside from the fact that Switzerland has never been invaded) Switzerland has a low gun crime rate, much lower than the United States. It's hard to glamorize a tool that everyone has (e.g. you could stick someone in the eye with a pen, but everyone has a pen and it isn't very exciting). Furthermore, it's a dissusasive factor to someone who might consider committing a crime if most people are walking around with weapons. Sure, maybe you can pull out your gun and hold up a bank, but you're nothing special -- it'd be like doing so with a knife when everyone else has knives. Or with your bare hands when everyone else has bare hands -- you're going to be hurt by similarly-armed people.

I could *maybe* even see gun laws banning handguns. But never assault rifles. Assault weapons are the core of the Second Amendment.

Re:Why do you think we have the 2nd Amendment?

[0x0d0a]

There you have a populace that isn't standing an army (all standing armies do these days is get levelled - that's what heavy ordinance is for), but are equipped with not just assualt rifles, but mines, rocket propelled grenades, high explosives and a will to die for their cause. While they are managing to cause serious problems, they are a long way from overthrowing the government as long as the US military remains involved.

If an administration ever attempted to turn the United States military against said United States citizenry, there are several differences from Iraq:

(a) Many members of our military would probably not follow orders to kill US citizens.

(b) The target count is overwhelming. Our military isn't designed around carpet-bombing any more. An angry populace doesn't have long tank convoys to destroy.

(c) Resupply wouldn't exist. How long can you keep an A-10 flying without a populace providing fuel and parts for it?

The AWB is not about Assault Weapons.

[CryptoEngineer]

Assault Weapons are submachineguns, which usually fire relatively low power cartridges. They are fully automatic - if you pull the trigger back, they'll fire until the magazine is empty. They are used for close-in assaults - clearing buildings, etc.

The AWB does not ban these - they are covered under an earlier law which does not expire (they can still be owned under certain onerous conditions).

The AWB, despite its name, actually covers semi-automatic rifles which resemble to certain assault rifles. Semis fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, in the same way that a policeman's pistol or a cowboy's revolver does. They are not assault weapons since they cannot be fired in automatic mode. The AWB lists guns resembling certain assault weapons, or which have more than a certain number of specific features, such as a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a flash hider, or a telescoping stock.

The AWB bans semi-automatic rifles which look scary, ignoring the fact that the average deer rifle is far more powerful and has better range.

I own an AR15 which I use in CMP target matches. While this rifle fires essentially the same round as our soldiers are using in Iraq, in many places I could not even use it to hunt deer legally, since its too feeble a round. Something like this packs a much bigger punch. Of course, there is no talk of banning this rifle, since it does not look scary.

A good analogy to the AWB would be if the legislature decided to attack dangerous driving by banning fuzzy dice and chrome exhausts. It might make some people feel better, but actually attacks the wrong target. (The right target is the criminal, not the gun.)

The (so-called) "Assault Weapons Ban" is a very silly law which did not ban Assault Weapons, or detectably reduce crime. I'm glad its dying. I'm not going out to buy any of the 'scary features' for my rifle - it's fine as it is. But I will like having the ability to do so if I wanted - that's what freedom is all about.

Good riddance

[Experiment 626]

This has been a very ill-conceived and widely misunderstood law, and I will be glad to see it go.

The affected weapons are mostly ones that outwardly resemble military firearms, while having nowhere near the firepower. Rather than firing bursts of ammunition like their fully-automatic counterparts, the so-called assault rifles fire one shot at a time, with less powerful ammunition than a hunting rifle. Pistols affected by this law generally had outward designs similar to fully-automatic submachine guns, but had only the same caliber and rate of fire as an ordinary handgun - with much bulkier size and weight.

A criminal would be an idiot to choose a firearm from the affected class of firearms. They would use an ordinary handgun, or if they really sought something more powerful as defenders of the legislation claim, they would smuggle in some firearms that actually WERE military grade instead of just superficially looking like it.

In practice, the only people affected by the law have been legitimate gun collectors, who disagree with the law but struggle to comply with it. What shape grips constitute a "conspicuous pistol grip"? When the law requires a barrel attachment to be "permanently affixed", do you weld it, super-glue it on, pin it, use lock-tight? Interpret the subjective phrases differently than someone at the ATF, and you become a felon.

The other major provision was a limitation on ammunition magazines ("clips") to 10 rounds. Much like 640k of memory, this might seem to be enough for anybody. But, given that those who are most in the know about defending oneself in life and death situations (police, military, federal agents, etc.) generally carry larger magazines than this themselves, even with superior training to worry less about missing their target, perhaps there is something to be said for having a couple extra rounds just in case.

The other flaw with the 10 round limit is that it was based on the arbitrary assumption that no civilian would ever need more than this to protect themself, but provided no guarantee to back this up. Why did the law not include language guaranteeing that before any civilian had fired the 10th shot in a life-and-death situation, police would had arrived on the scene and taken their attacker into custody?

Sturm Gewere (pardon my German)

[Bob_Robertson]

Sorry I cannot spell that correctly, but I'm not German. The Germans, however, are the ones that invented and named the "assault rifle".

It is a small, relatively under-powered sub machine gun. Small cartridges, so more can be carried because more are wasted.

The Ban didn't effect "assault rifles", because those are already covered by the 1934 and 1968 laws.

As was stated by the people who wrote the "assault weapon" ban, they were counting on the American public being duped into thinking that the rifles effected were "assault rifles", Machine guns, Actual military hardware. What we got was pointless regulation which demonized cosmetic features and created massive confusion and cost for everyone involved.

Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the .30-06. The .30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.

Then there is the stupidity of prohibition. Every time it is tried it fails. Alcohol prohibition created the environment of criminal gangs, mafia, "organized" crime that is alive and well to this day.

Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?

There isn't any logic, of course. Any prohibition in a so-called "free" society is doomed. Either the prohibition is ignored, or the freedoms that would allow the law to be ignored are taken away.

There has been continual prohibition in the US since January 16th, 1919. Government has grown titanic, organized crime are almost peaceful compared to the jack-booted thugs who hide behind their badges. "Citizens" are tracked like cattle, allowed freedom only in limited, carefully regulated bounds, while the police kill at will.

And all because we forgot the most important part of the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The existence of prohibition is, on its face, such a usurpation. The fact that there are many prohibitions right now merely demonstrates that our masters are indeed persuing invariably the same object.

Bob-

Gun control works...

[NEOtaku17]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolf Hitler

Who needs an Anything?

[timothy]

"The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer?"

Not to pick on you in particular (except, well, that I am picking on you in particular ;), who needs an Anything?

The idea that things not specifically "needed" (as determined by whom?) are suspect or should need to be justified for some reason has implications that I don't like, most especially when applied blithely to weapons (potentially, at least) of self defense.

Who needs plastic bags for groceries? After all, (conventional) plastics rely on petroleum, and contribute to the dissipation of natural resources. [Ignore the considerations of price, convenience, shipping convenience, reusability, etc, that might lead a person or a business to prefer them.]

Who needs more than one child? The world has enough people, and any more mouths to feed are a net loss. If you want more, too bad, others have decided you don't need any. (Forced abortions in the western provinces of China.)

Who needs more than 2000 calories a day? It's unhealthy to overeat, and people who overeat (and then develop health problems) are a burden and drain on society.

Who needs more than 10 shirts? Can't those people just wash more often? They're depleting resources and spending their money inefficiently, and hurting all of us.

Who needs sharp knives? They're dangerous in the hands of lunatics.

Who needs a computer that is powerful enough to play a significant role in designing nuclear weapons?

I wish these questions were more rhetorical, but obviously some of them are not! And of course, who needs a Xerox machine? (Illegal to have such a thing during most of the history of the Soviet Union.)

Another snide but serious answer to "Who needs a gun designed to kill people?" is, "Well, the Swiss seem to think that they do, and they don't get invaded very often." Also, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, when they were being rounded up for extermination camps and -- bravely but ultimately unsuccessfully -- fought back with what weapons they *did* have. I don't mean to activate Godwin's Law here, I hope I've stayed just shy of it ;)

To further tread that line; the question is not whether governments ever grow tyrannical and oppress the people they're supposed to be serving (at least when they make the gesture of claiming to be a servant in the first place), it's how often, to what degree, and under what circumstances. The Third Reich is only one of many such in the last 100 years. Stalin and others killed either more in absolute numbers or as a percentage of their country's / dominion's population.

Cheers (uh, if that is the right closing note),

Tim

Who needs 30+ round clips? We do!

[JimMarch(equalccw)]

First point: the 1994 "ban" didn't do anything. Since there's no "core technical difference" between a standard semi-auto hunting rifle like this Remington:

http://www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/7400w d.htm

and this "AR Pattern" rifle available in one of the *weaker* calibers Remington supports on the 7400 (the 308 Nato):

http://armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar10b.htm

The Remington is pictured with a 5rd magazine but 10rd that poke out of the bottom of the gun are available now and with the ban on 10+ magazines gone, they'll be available there soon.

Both guns are semi-auto, magazine fed. After midnight tonight, it will be possible to sell either with such accessories as bayonette lugs, flash dohickey on the end of the barrel, etc...none of which affect lethality.

Because the guns that "look scary" aren't technically different from those that look more "sporting" like that Remington (one of many examples I could show), back in '94 Congress banned certain "evil features" that were purely cosmetic, in an attempt to home in on the "evil looking guns" and leave the deer rifles alone.

Which made the law arbitrary and stupid, and is what's really causing it's death tonight.

Which leaves two questions:

1) Why would anybody want a "military pattern rifle" in the first place?

A: first, parts are widespread and cheap. They usually share at least some components and accessories with the full-auto military versions which are banned; as long as the parts in question don't add full-auto capability, they're legal.

Second, when rifles are engineered to be able to handle full-auto stresses and battlefield conditions via rigorous testing, they're tough as nails. Once the full-auto capability is stripped for the civilian market, they're even tougher as they don't need to cope with that. (Full-auto fire can wear out a barrel in just a few hundred shots in some cases, which is why real military machine gunners keep extra barrels with them for quick swaps.)

Why have a tough gun?

Because competitive shooters must practice a lot - practice levels beyond what hunting rifles can cope with. The vast majority of full-power rifle competition happens not with deer rifles or even high-accuracy target rifles, but with AR-pattern critters distantly related to the US military M16 family, hot-rodded for accuracy.

The Remington probably has a total lifespan of a couple thousand rounds. Less in the hotter calibers like 30-06 or 270Winchester.

AR-pattern rifle owners can sign up for a three-day class in riflework by nationally known instructors such as John Farnham, and shoot 1500 rounds in a three day weekend...and the gun will *probably* hold up. He has loaner spares just in case they don't, as that's one hell of a duty cycle...one that no "pure civilian origin" rifle could even hope to survive.

-----------

Which leaves the other, more controversial issue: the full-capacity magazines of 20 to 30 rounds, or the truly high-cap mags like the Beta-C drums of 75 - 150.

Who needs that?

Slashdotters of all people should know a critical thing: the majority isn't always right. If you thought otherwise, why don't we format all our Linux partitions and run Windoze? I mean, the market has spoken, right?

Spoken in favor of rank idiocy. "The market" is made up of the same technoturnips that try and find the "any key" when the screen says "press any key to continue".

That particular kind of idiocy is harmless. But every once in a while, the sheeple masses get violently stupid all at once. They riot in LA because of a court decision, or a bunch of morons decide to loot after a hurricane or other natural disaster.

Those are recent examples; in both, homeowners and business owners often sto