Reauthorizing the assault weapons ban...

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I want to make an observation here on how rediculous this HR 1022 is. It's another "assault weapons" ban the Liberals are trying to pass.

    Lets take two weapons here. Both of which I own.

    Ruger mini-14 .223 (left) Savage Arms .308 (right)

    These are both similar weapons used for basically the same purpose, to hunt. They operate somewhat differently, the top is semi-auto .223 caliber (meaning one pull of the trigger gets one shot off) The bottom is a bolt action rifle .308 caliber (After one shot you have to reload using the bolt action slide you can see in the photo). They both can hold 6 rounds respectivley. The ruger can hold more based on the clip you use.

    I want to get into how ridiculous this is, and how this makes no sense what so ever. Here is a photo of the two different calibers. The .308 on the left, and the .223 in the middle. For comparison there is a 9mm handgun round on the right.


    The .223 (middle) is used in the semi-auto which they are trying to ban. This caliber bullet can not penetrate steel, and in most cases can not penetrate body armor. Where as the .308 (left) used in a regular old bolt action hunting rifle could put a hole in steel and a bullet proof vest from 100 yards. There is not much that could stop a .308 round. There is plenty that could stop a .223 round and a 9mm (both used in semi-autos) So I ask why is it congress is trying to pass this bullsh!t resolution when we can clearly see the weapons they are banning aren't as deadly as an everyday .308 rifle.

  2. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    Because most people don't know the first thing about guns, and couldn't care less. When they hear talk of banning "military-style assault weapons" it makes sense to them. It's an emotional issue to most, so the technical details don't mean anything.
  3. The original author of the bill, Sen. Diane Feinstein, comes from the ultraliberal San Franfreakshow where she was the mayor and she was whining about this lapse of the ban a couple of years ago.

    The day before the bill expired Officer Issac Ezpinoza of the SFPD was gunned down with an AK47.

    Two days later a gang fight broke out at a funereal ceremony just down the road in Colma in which fully automatic weapons were used.

    Keep in mind that California has a much stricter assualt weapon ban than did the country, that it had been in place far longer than the national ban,


    that it still hadn't expired.

    How much do you want to bet that the gangbangers and the effer that killed Officer Espinoza were otherwise law-abiding citizens and it was ONLY the availability of weapons that caused them to breach that SINGLE law?
  4. Stay Away

    Stay Away Guest

    And why the hell are switchblades banned? In a knife fight they give you about a 1 second advantage over a regular old kitchen knife.

    And bayonets on guns are banned. you could ductape a knife to a .308 and it'd be the exact same thing
  5. Duke1985

    Duke1985 EatsApplePieShitsFreedom

    I think that has something to do with how easy they are to conceal.
    I've heard alot of police officers backing up weapons bans such as the assualt rifle and switchblade bans, they don't want those guns turned on them I think.

    Ofcourse thats just a thought, not quite an argument.
  6. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    The new assault weapons ban is actually more general, so these petty classification differences will be less blatant. The assault weapons ban was originally to narrow to really stop supply, which is what they really want. The difference between a legal firearm and a black market one is oftentimes just a serial number being filed off. 1.17 million assault weapons were created during the ban's effective period, I would simply be curious to wonder how many of those have ended up in the black market or criminal's hands.

    To paraphrase Amara's Law, we will overestimate the short term change and underestimate the long term change. Criminals overruing the streets and such is probably not a likely scenario, a million less assault weapons total and harsher penalities and regulations on owning them...over a decade or two might suprise people. The only proven way to eliminate gun violence is to simply shut off supply of them, and then regulate what's left, which is what a well-designed assault weapons ban is trying to accomplish.
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I think the solution here is not to take the semi-auto technology out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but to secure the borders here. Bush has a horrible anti-immigration policy, and I believe a lot of our problems stem from illegals coming across the border, mainly drugs and black market guns. A lot of the weapons on our streets now come from other nations. Yes, banning the weapon may in fact in the long term keep the majority of criminals from getting them, but on the flip side of that violent crime such as robbery, rape and burglary would increase much as they did in Australia and England. That and they could still go across the border to get them. I think really tightening our borders would throw a wrench in the works on the illegal arms trade.

    Also people always seem to forget one key thing about firearms. The second amendment, namely the part “Shall not be infringed”.

    When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment they knew full and well the citizens at the time had the same technologically advanced weapons the military and the government used. They wanted it that way, they wanted the people to have the same weapons as the government. Why would that be any different now? I’m sure the founding fathers knew technology would change and would want the people not to have inferior weapons to the government. That’s why the last four words were included. Banning semi-auto technology won’t curb crime, and it would violate the last four words of the second amendment.

Share This Page