[Bullet Tooth]

Im writing an article about thwy the assault weapons ban should end (and Im trying to use it to convince people who are in favor of some gun rights, but use the same old "you dont need an assault weapon for protection" song and dance)

---------------------------------------

I noticed on the A human right site they talked about how once,certain guns would be banned, it would be a precursor to total ban (and not in the sense that once effective guns were banned, the people couldnt resist their other weapons being taken)

so, I need some historical examples (with source) of this happening

[Justin]

http://www.awbansunset.com

[obiwan1]

I saw an interesting statement that would make a good bumper sticker:

"It's not about duck hunting, It's about homeland defense"


For months I've been using the term "homeland defense weapons" since none of popular media has any idea what an assault weapon is. It seems to be much more accurate and more indicative of our feelings.:D

[braindead0]

Perhaps we need to refer to the AWB as the Homeland Defense Weapon Ban, perhaps that would get us a leg up in the propaganda war.

[Dave R]

Repeating a few points I have heard others make...

1. The weapons referred to in the Assault Weapons ban do not meet the military definition of assault weapon. They are not capable of full-automatic fire. They are derivatives of "true" assault weapons, manufactured specifically for civilian use.

2. The weapons listed in the assault weapons ban do not differ materially from other non-banned rifles. They have the same function--semi-auto repeaters.

3. The banned rifles are not "high-powered". They shoot "intermediate" powered cartridged (in military lingo). Many hunters so not consider them appropriate for deer-sized game. Some states specifically ban some of the cartridges used in banned wepons for use in deer hunting (.223 in particular).

4. The weapons banned have rarely been used in criminal activities. There have been a few highly-publicized cases where banned weapons were used. But almost all guns used in crimes are handguns. The Ban has no impact on them, and has had virtually no impact on crime.

5. The features signalled out as "evil" by the ban have no impact on crime. Bayonet lugs, for example. When has there ever been a "drive-by bayoneting"? Pistol grip stocks? Dianne Feinstein made a big point about how they help shooting from the hip. Shooting from the hip is an excellent way to miss the target. You cannot use the sights when shooting from the hip. Standard-capacity magazines? Speaking statistically, the number of rounds fired in a crime almost never exceeds the number of rounds in the new, reducd-capacity magazines (10 rounds). So what's the point?

[Bullet Tooth]

well, here is what my main point in the article is going to be:

Statistics show that in Defensive gun use, the gun is not fired 76% of the time.

therefore,intimidation is the most important use of a gun in self defense. therefore, It would be a benefit to have a "bad" looking gun...and to back up the fact that thse weapons are "bad" looking ,I will point out that these guns are banned on the basis of their looks

...of course, my real main points are that before the ban, and still today, assault rifles count for less than 1% of homocides, and how most criminals get guns on the black market

[Elmer Snerd]

You'll need to dig a bit to find posts specific to "assault weapons":
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=20454
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=10863

http://reason.com/bi/guns.shtml
http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml
http://www.reason.com/sullum/050903.shtml
http://reason.com/sullum/101802.shtml

[sw442642]

Sharon Jo Ramboz to defend her home is little known despite her testimony before Congress (Homsher, 2001).

Homsher, D. (2001). Women and guns: politics and culture of firearms in America. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

[mec]

All of these points are valid but It might be useful to remember that We and not Them came up with the term " Assault Rifle" as applied to the military look-alikes. A decade or so ago, there were magazines out with such titles as " Guns and Ammo Guide to Assault Rifles(sic)" Mel Tappin used the phrase throughout his book " Survival Guns"

We overadvertised the concept and the lefties picked it up. They never did learn much about what it meant though. It wouldn't be at all surprising to hear one of them define an Assault Weapon as a " Gun that holds multiple bulletheads in a clip."

[Peetmoss]

The AR-15 "assualt rifle" is consider not powerful enough in my state to be legal to hunt big game with. For that matter niether is a single shot, or bolt action .223. Any gun that has a .22 Cal bullet is illegal for big game use in NY. Why because it is felt that it isn't doesn't have enough power to put down a whitetall humanly.

I find it extreamly funny how these guns are so deadly to humans but on the same hand are thought of as not powerful enough to kill a deer. Both humans and deer are thin skinned animals in my area an adult buck goes between 170 and 225 same as alot of adult human males. It's one of those things that makes you go :confused:

[alan]

Bullet Tooth:

I noticed a number of responses, so what I'll say following might not add anything, however may I "organize" things?

1. The proper definition for Assault Weapon, the one used by DoD, Dept of The Army, and standard reference texts, including www.britannica.com, I believe they charge to use it nowadays, is as follows. Assault Weapon: Selective Fire Weapon, usually of rifle configuration, chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

2. The Asault Weapon Ban, so-called, completely ignores the technical definition, as it goes on about what are essentially cosmetic, non functional features, prominently protruding pistol grips, threaded muzzles, bayonete lugs and so forth, a practice that serves only to becloud the question. Media reporting or comment on the issue is something that only muddies the water, since from what they write, they do not know the difference between a semi-automatic firearm and a machine gun.

3. If you run a search of the U.S. Code, nowhere therein, under "assault weapon", will you find comment relating to the proper, technical definition, which is the only definition that has any merit or worth at all.

4. With respect to selective fire capability, if any of the firearms effected by this so-called assault weapons ban had it, none did, at least as they were offered for commercial sale in this country, they would have fallen under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Since they didn't, they lacked selective fire capability, which therefore precludes, assuming that one were interested in truth as opposed to fancy, mischaracterization of these firearms as "assault weapons". Of course, the very last thing the anti gunners are interested in is the truth, but that is another matter.

Hope that the above is of some help.

Alan

[Monte Harrison]

For months I've been using the term "homeland defense weapons" since none of popular media has any idea what an assault weapon is. It seems to be much more accurate and more indicative of our feelings. I understand your point, but this smacks of "spin" to me. Just call it what it is: a rifle.

[Oleg Volk]

Pointing out the illogic of the antis' feature list would only help them make a more realistic list. Why not argue the indavisability of collective punishments, such as prohibiting lawful people from possessing property based on the actions of a few goblins?

[alan]

Mec and Oleg respectively:

Points taken, and valid too.

[sw442642]

Search for Koper and Roth and you will find their study that seems to conclusively demonstrate that the current AWB has done nothing to affect any standard crime index.

They argue this is because of:

1. an already existing stock of weapons
2. complete substitutability of weapons of similar characteristics that are legal in most places.

Several conclusions can be drawn:

1. They said the ban needs to be renewed to give it more time to have an effect. This is illogical given points 1 and 2, but they said it.

2. The ban should be allowed to sunset as it does nothing.

3. It should be expanded to cover all the evil weapons of equivalent capabilities.

Thus, arguing that the current ban is useless is a double edged sword. What conclusion you draw from 2 and 3 depends on your gun politics.

The typical RKBA reasons for having such guns:

1. They are equivalent to common hunting guns
2. We have an absolute right under the 2nd amend.
3. We need them for personal and national defense

may or may not have utility in the upcoming debate. That will remain to be seen.

However, it seems GWB has had a mental lapse. Since the ban is useless according to well done research by the DOJ mentioned above, he should pick choices 2 or 3 (no ban or more ban). By supporting the continuation of the current ban, he is dumb or being dishonest for sheer political gain. That is not a good thing.

[mattd]

How about we have a right to bear arms and not a privilege to bear some arms.

Assault Weapons bans also limits shotguns and handguns.