Redlg155
Member
I'd say most everyone but Colt. They were "politically" correct with non military standard fire control/takedown pins, sear blocks and neutered FSBs even before the Assault Weapon Ban.
Good Shooting
Red
Should we all be stocking up on post-bans?
- Thread starter MicroBalrog
- Start date
- Status
I'd say most everyone but Colt. They were "politically" correct with non military standard fire control/takedown pins, sear blocks and neutered FSBs even before the Assault Weapon Ban.
Good Shooting
Red
WilderBill
Member
I think the AWB will die if we write our congress critters.
Once it does the various makers will be free to offer more variations. Some will revert to pre ban, others will continue with current production, perhaps there will be some that ofer some pre ban features, but not others.
The point is that we, the gun buying public will have more choices and that's a good thing.
Yes, Microbalrog, one of everything would be a bit pricey, but we can dream anyway, right?
Once it does the various makers will be free to offer more variations. Some will revert to pre ban, others will continue with current production, perhaps there will be some that ofer some pre ban features, but not others.
The point is that we, the gun buying public will have more choices and that's a good thing.
Yes, Microbalrog, one of everything would be a bit pricey, but we can dream anyway, right?
DrDremel
Member
If the ban goes away, post ban sytle semis will be LESS valuable. I don't think anybody will collect them. It will be a booming business to change the muzzle brakes and stocks to folders and flash-hiders. I will just because I can. Low-cap mags will be next to worthless for resale.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Being somewhat pessimistic by nature, I don't think the ban is going away. The media hasn't done anything to clarify to the public just what the ban is really about. Most people think it has to do with full-autos. And don't count on the media to give the public an education on the issue now, because they'd have to explain why they've been lying for eight years.
Meanwhile, the anti's are already talking about renewing the ban and marshalling their forces for that. Of course, they're also looking to expand upon the '94 ban.
The number of people interested in Evil Black Rifles is such a small fraction of the firearms community that there will be little complaint if congress enacts a new ban. Depending upon the political landscape in 2004, the NRA may or may not decide to go full-bore against a renewal.
I'll write and call my legislators, and do anything else, but a renewal wouldn't surprise me.
Meanwhile, the anti's are already talking about renewing the ban and marshalling their forces for that. Of course, they're also looking to expand upon the '94 ban.
The number of people interested in Evil Black Rifles is such a small fraction of the firearms community that there will be little complaint if congress enacts a new ban. Depending upon the political landscape in 2004, the NRA may or may not decide to go full-bore against a renewal.
I'll write and call my legislators, and do anything else, but a renewal wouldn't surprise me.
King
Member
I'm a bit pessimistic as well. I hope but don't really see that the Ban will go away. And, it could be even more strict. I thonk we should get what we can and hold on to it.
That said, I say collect both pre and post bans. Personally, the differences between the two are not that important (to me) ie; bayonet lug, flash suppressor, telescoping stock.
That said, I say collect both pre and post bans. Personally, the differences between the two are not that important (to me) ie; bayonet lug, flash suppressor, telescoping stock.
Buy now, and if the ban does die you can add most of the goodies back on the postban. If a new law is enacted you're still covered (and there may be a short period of time where you can stick stuff on your postban legally before such items are again considered "evil".
Only an idiot would pay more money for a neutered postban when a preban style gun is right there for the same money or cheaper. The demand in states that ban the goodstuff might keep the prices close to where they are, but they're not going to skyrocket...
Only an idiot would pay more money for a neutered postban when a preban style gun is right there for the same money or cheaper. The demand in states that ban the goodstuff might keep the prices close to where they are, but they're not going to skyrocket...
Hkmp5sd
Member
I'm somewhat undecided on the ban going away or not. It is a presidential election year with a republican president and republican controlled house and senate.
It would be very hard for the republicans to explain to us why THEY wrote, approved and signed a new assault weapon ban law and then try to get us to vote for them. In 1994, they had some plausible deniability. "It was the Democrats that did it!" Not now. It's all on their shoulders and they either stand buy their constituents or go find another job.
It would be very hard for the republicans to explain to us why THEY wrote, approved and signed a new assault weapon ban law and then try to get us to vote for them. In 1994, they had some plausible deniability. "It was the Democrats that did it!" Not now. It's all on their shoulders and they either stand buy their constituents or go find another job.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Hkmp5sd: "It's all on their shoulders and they either stand buy their constituents or go find another job."
Wrong answer. Demonstrate to them how it is in their best interest to vote against a renewal of the AW ban, how they can convince an overwhelmingly anti press that military look-alike semi-autos aren't full auto, that Evil Black Rifles don't "spray bullets," that they aren't more high-powered than a 30-06 hunting rifle, that they don't mow down helpless children with a single pull of the trigger, that they aren't the Holy Grail of guns sought by terrorists at US gun shows (with or without background checks), that Evil Black Rifles are not the root of all firearms-related problems here in the US...
In other words, give them the political cover they need to buck a media onslaught. If you can figure out how to do that, your legislator has his behind covered. If you can't, don't expect him to go out on a limb for you. You are a constituent. And there's 1000 constituents of his who've been programmed by the press to react when the Pavlovian bell rings.
Tall order, isn't it?
Wrong answer. Demonstrate to them how it is in their best interest to vote against a renewal of the AW ban, how they can convince an overwhelmingly anti press that military look-alike semi-autos aren't full auto, that Evil Black Rifles don't "spray bullets," that they aren't more high-powered than a 30-06 hunting rifle, that they don't mow down helpless children with a single pull of the trigger, that they aren't the Holy Grail of guns sought by terrorists at US gun shows (with or without background checks), that Evil Black Rifles are not the root of all firearms-related problems here in the US...
In other words, give them the political cover they need to buck a media onslaught. If you can figure out how to do that, your legislator has his behind covered. If you can't, don't expect him to go out on a limb for you. You are a constituent. And there's 1000 constituents of his who've been programmed by the press to react when the Pavlovian bell rings.
Tall order, isn't it?
Hkmp5sd
Member
Monkeyleg,
That's whay I was implying. We have to make it known to them that the majority of their constituents are against the ban and provide them with enough support to consider voting against a new ban as their best option.
This includes making them aware of the fact that Bush the 1st failed to gain re-election in part due to his 1989 import restrictions. He thought that sucking up to the democratic gun-grabbers was more important than annoying the gun owners. In his view, we had no other option than to vote for him. He was proven wrong by the lack of a NRA endorsement for president and by failing to be re-elected.
They must be made VERY aware that if they ignore us and create a new assault weapon ban, they will be replaced by someone that will represent our wishes.
That's whay I was implying. We have to make it known to them that the majority of their constituents are against the ban and provide them with enough support to consider voting against a new ban as their best option.
This includes making them aware of the fact that Bush the 1st failed to gain re-election in part due to his 1989 import restrictions. He thought that sucking up to the democratic gun-grabbers was more important than annoying the gun owners. In his view, we had no other option than to vote for him. He was proven wrong by the lack of a NRA endorsement for president and by failing to be re-elected.
They must be made VERY aware that if they ignore us and create a new assault weapon ban, they will be replaced by someone that will represent our wishes.
4570Rick
Member
4v50Gary has it right...:
eap...
The Gun Grabbers have been refering to hunting rifles as "Sniper Rifles" for many years. But you go ahead and hold on to your dreams.
Pardon the flame, but you have to understand, the ultimate goal of the "Gun Grabbers" is complete firearms confiscation from all private citizens.
:banghead
eap...
The Gun Grabbers have been refering to hunting rifles as "Sniper Rifles" for many years. But you go ahead and hold on to your dreams.
Pardon the flame, but you have to understand, the ultimate goal of the "Gun Grabbers" is complete firearms confiscation from all private citizens.
:banghead
Last edited:
MicroBalrog
member
Monkeyleg
Member.
Hkmp5sd, sorry if I misconstrued what you said. However, I think the main reasons Bush I lost were: breaking his "no taxes" promise to his conservative base; and not addressing the issue of the recession to the satisfaction of the public. I've yet to see the AW issue show up as a reason for his defeat, except on some of the online gun forums, which represent a tiny minority of the public.
- Status
Similar threads
