If there was an impending AWB what would you buy (specific choices)

Which would you buy if you thought there might be an upcoming AWB

  • 3 LMT Lower receivers with pistol grips and SOPMOD stocks

    Votes: 63 55.8%

  • 1 complete LMT rifle with MRP and a forward grip

    Votes: 50 44.2%
  • Total voters
    113
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

.cheese.

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
3,808
I'm wondering which of the following would be a better idea.

I'm basically wondering if it would be wiser to get lowers and then add MRP uppers after the ban (if possible) with forward grips

OR

Get 1 rifle complete
 
There won't be an impending assault weapons ban, since those are already highly regulated - they'll instead go after what they did before and go after semi-auto homeland defense rifles (bogusly misnamed "AWB"). Is that what you meant to say? Please don't use the bogus words and phrases of the gun banners, as if they had meaning.
 
Stocking up on lower receivers was a good plan under the last AWB.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that a future AWB would leave that loophole intact. The HR 1022 verbage ruled out using pre-ban lowers to make weapons not in compliance with the ban, if I remember right.
 
PremiumSauces, I think you are mistaken. An Assault Rifle would be the already heavily regulated weapon. An assault weapon is any weapon which falls under the arbitrary and silly conditions laid out by the Clinton-era AWB.

Legally, the term probably isn't used at all any more in the legal system, although it is undeniable that for a time, "assault weapons" existed, even if they were only a bayonet lug more than a "sporting rifle".

I would be interested to see how they track "assault weapons crime" statistics.

For the OP, it would depend on the ban. Does it allow for you to be able to build up the rifle later? If so, as many decent lowers as I could find, to sell at scalpers price after I build them into evil Assault Weapons.
 
No, I'm not mistaken. The Clintons and other gun banners can call semi-auto rifles "assault weapons" all they want - it doesn't make it so, and if WE adopt their language, then we lose the fence-sitters, who see no problem with banning "assault weapons" but are sympathetic to retaining the use of "homeland defense rifles" Words matter - why would we WILLINGLY use their bogus phrases which only serve to hurt us? Do the pro-choice people call themselves "pro-abortion", the label dreamed up by their opposition? Of course not. The banners must be laughing their fool heads off at how their plan worked like a charm, and how gullible we gun owners are.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapons ban"!!! Never has been and probably never will be (since the '34 act licensing scheme for assault weapons is not under attack by the anti-gunners). There is ONLY such a thing as a "semi auto and standard capacity magazine ban, erroneously misnamed 'assault weapon ban' by the anti-gunners", which needs to be typed out just like that every single time, with their bogus phrase of "assault weapon" in quotes every single time to indicate that it's complete and total fecal matter. Otherwise the battle for the hearts and mind of the fence-sitting public is lost before its ever begun. I think what should be *banned* is anyone who willingly uses that phrase or it's abbreviation (AWB) to refer to the cooked up BS of the anti-gunners.
 
As stupid as the phrase is, it is (or rather, was) a legal term.

There is no getting around the fact that weapons could have been declared- correctly- assault weapons. And, using the criteria of the ban, they could still be called that, correctly.

Homeland defense rifles are just as bad, because I have to say that a lot of my semiautos have no business defending the homeland... that is certainly not their purpose.

I have to say, though... if you feel like really turning off a fence sitter, go ahead and bang on about the militia stuff... it doesn't matter if you're right, they don't want to hear that sort of thing.
 
There is no getting around the fact that weapons could have been declared- correctly- assault weapons. And, using the criteria of the ban, they could still be called that, correctly.
Click to expand...

No they cannot. The Clintons could write an act commanding that no one is allowed to look into the red sky. That doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

Homeland defense rifles are just as bad, because I have to say that a lot of my semiautos have no business defending the homeland... that is certainly not their purpose.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what the purpose is. We lose the war if we use their words. We *might* win the war if we call them on their BS phrases, each and every time, from here to eternity.

I have to say, though... if you feel like really turning off a fence sitter, go ahead and bang on about the militia stuff... it doesn't matter if you're right, they don't want to hear that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

What's militia got to do with anything? Who said anything about the militia? There's a very real threat of Al Quaida attacks and people understand this since 9/11. Who knows what public place some Al Quaida nut is going to shoot up, from which semi-autos could be used to defend againt? People understand defending their homes and communities (their homeland) from religious terrorist nutjobs. People are scared of "assault weapons".
 
'Homeland defense rifle' sounds like a term used by all the mall ninja types of the world, while they're sitting around playing with themselves reading the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine or looking at a picture of a Ranger tab.

The fence sitters, or even the public at large, is going to use the term that's easiest to say and/or type. Plus what CBS220 said.

I can see what you mean though. I feel the same way about the misuse of the word 'queso'. I have to admit, though, that my grumbling and complaining about it have thus far achieved nothing.
 
Sheesh.

Quit quibbling over definitions.

An assault weapon is an AR-15, an M-16, an M-60, whatever. Because that is the way it is, not necessarily the way it should be.

And if you think that the next AWB is going to be the same as the last, dream on. This one is going to say something like "Any semi-automatic rifle or pistol," and that's going to be it. They know they screwed up with the model numbers and the cosmetics last time. They may be dumb, but they're not stupid.

Now, promptly remove your heads from your fourth points of contact, and get politically active to make sure that we don't have a Democrat in the white house who will gleefully rubber stamp the legislation.
 
Last AWB passed by one vote, everything will get grandfathered in if their ever was another AWB which is highly doubtful.
 
Oh, on topic: I'd buy the complete rifle. You never know what'll happen to the price/availability of build-it-yourself parts, so better to have one functioning rifle than 3 expensive paperweights.
 
Wrong.

Obama KNOWS that the folks over on the other side of the world are going to "test" him. And in "Patriot Act II," we're going to see an AWB that isn't going to delineate stuff by cosmetic features, model numbers, or whether you owned it or registered it before a specific date.

If any of you think that your "pre-ban-II" rifles are going to make you enough money to send your kids to college, you are sorely mistaken.
 
It will never pass if it did that, its highly doubtful it would pass at all. No one will be turning anything in, especially not guns. The president can't simply pass what ever he/she wants.
 
Wow premiumsauces, good job on de-railing this thread off from the start.

They may be dumb, but they're not stupid.
Click to expand...

I'd like to debate the definitions of those two words bogie, i think you're splitting hairs.

As for the original post, i think it would be better to have one full rifle as opposed to three lowers. Better to have a gun that works instead of three chunks of metal.
 
The president can't just sign something into law. But they can work pretty darn hard to make sure that said law makes it to their desk so that they can endorse it. Or they work to make sure it -won't- make it to their desk...

If Obama is in the white house, we're going to see gun control legislation that the Clinton administration only dreamed of...
 
It doesn't matter if we call semi-autos assault weapons or not. We have a right to own assault weapons, (including the select fire kind), and we should assert it, not run away from it.
 
And remember that "Assert it" does not mean "Stay home on election day."

For what it is worth, I'm not thrilled about the choices, but I'd rather see one group of judges, and one likelihood of legislation signed into law, than the other. The Democrats have basically one strategy this election: Make gun folks either vote third party or stay home. Screw 'em.
 
I think "buying for a ban" is rather futile. Like Bogie says, AWB II would be nothing like AWB I. It would most likely be all-encompassing and prohibit private transfers (or at least severely restrict them).

Buying things now with the hopes of selling them for higher-profit during the "next ban" isn't good business sense, it's profiteering. It is legal, but highly unethical.

I for one am done playing this whole, "are they going to ban it?" game. I've instead switched to the, "you aren't going to ban anything else!" game.

Remember that the ball is now in our court. We are on offense.

We have a right to own assault weapons, (including the select fire kind), and we should assert it, not run away from it.
Click to expand...

Correct, which is why I like to buck the trend and say, "are machine guns really that much more dangerous than semi-autos?". The answer is no. The only functional difference is that for one, I have to press the trigger each time I shoot and for the other, I can just hold it down. So, if they push to ban semi-autos, I say, we push for more machine guns. I'm sick of neutered garbage. Hell, I'll pay the $200 tax, I just won't pay $4000 for a $400 mac-10 (which was overpriced even in pre-86 days).
 
Personally, I'd go for a complete rifle. AFAIK the bill references lawfully owned 'assault weapons' being grandfathered. I don't think they'd agree that a lower receiver counts as an assault weapon unless it is attached to an upper. In that case, your lowers might well become paperweights after an AWB, because building an assault weapon on them after the AWB is against the law. Like so many other completely wrong practices in law, it'd most likely be up to you to prove you had the completed assault weapon prior to the ban, even though it should be them proving you didn't.
 
Quit quibbling over definitions.

An assault weapon is an AR-15, an M-16, an M-60, whatever. Because that is the way it is, not necessarily the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Don't forget a single shot rifle in .50 BMG in CA.


The definition has not set definition and is open to constant change. You think you know what it is, but then once it is around, it grows to include more and more things, gains new features etc.
It is just a term that swallows various firearms and grows to swallow more the longer you use it.



And if you think that the next AWB is going to be the same as the last, dream on.
Click to expand...

They have already drafted it and it comes up every now and then. It is far worse. It bans many firearms not previously banned, includes more features, bans conversion kits and many other things people used to comply before while still having something similar.
Oh and the two 'evil features' before? I seem to recall them being reduced to one evil feature only.
Most of what qualified before would not.
It even includes all semi auto firearms used by the military or a federal LEO agency. It says that simply having been selected for such use any time in the weapon's history shall be grounds to assume it is in fact an assault weapon unless otherwise specificly exempted on an individual basis.
Oh and thier variants.

It is nothing like the previous ban, though on the surface to the average politician it really looks like almost the same thing. The differences are subtle if you are not looking closely.
Oh and even though the new bills are much worse, they hide under the premise of just being renewals to the previous one.


All they have to do is vote it in one of these times.
They just need more seats in congress and it can become law very quickly, though they wouldn't do that until the dems have the presidency.

Dems having the presidency, the house and the senate though is a scary thing. Most of the serious antis are dems, and many of the others vote along party lines.
There is a some Republican antis too, and they can give the impression of bi-partisan support.
 
Yeah, there are some Republican anti-gun folks.

So?

Overall, unless you are a complete and utter simpleton, or perhaps working out of a cubicle somewhere around the beltway, under payroll by the Democrats (who seem to understand teh interwebz better than the Republicans), there isn't much choice in this presidential election: Vote for the guy who is most likely to be influenced by his party to oppose restrictive, racist, and repellent firearms laws.
 
If Obama is in the white house, we're going to see gun control legislation that the Clinton administration only dreamed of...
Click to expand...

OT, but I'd just through out that personally I doubt this will be the case initially. At the moment, Democratic leadership remembers that their party was all but extinct a few years ago, with various media articles wondering if the party would implode, etc.

And they remember that the AWB did not do Clinton and the Democratic party any favors in the midterm elections way back when.

Most likely if Obama is elected, we can expect to see a couple years of fairly tentative legislation on hot topics, since the ultimate goal of both parties is to get in power and remain in power. They won't want to rock the boat too hard for fear of finding out their mandate is rather more shallow than they think, etc. My money, personally, is on seeing some sort of new AWB come down the pipeline only if they can hold both houses of Congress in the midterm elections and then start to get victory disease going.

Of course, all of the above could be rendered completely irrelevant if something like another Columbine or similar event got the media and public thoroughly riled up.

Edited to add: None of the above should be taken to mean that I don't think people should get out and vote, encourage others to vote, etc., to keep Obama and the rest of his party out of office.
 
I'm wondering which of the following would be a better idea.

I'm basically wondering if it would be wiser to get lowers and then add MRP uppers after the ban (if possible) with forward grips
Click to expand...

Would depend on the wording.

Some of the stuff written lately would not grandfather unassembled lowers like last time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top