The 1994 AWB just limits some features on a rifle, that affects domestic rifles, and limit handgun and rifle mags to 10rnds and has nothing to do with the 1989 AWB that restricts importation of foreign rifles. Also this won't affect the Clinton 1998/99 law that states that only rifles that accept 10rnd mag can be imported. So why do all the stupid anti-gun people think that suddenly all assault rifles will be importable again and the 1994 law needs to be renewed or made tougher? What are they so ignorant?
What's the big deal about the 1994 AWB expiring next year?
- Thread starter Amish
- Start date
- Status
It's a political issue. They either want to run the issue up the flagpole to gain political traction with their (shrinking) portion of the electorate - their soulmates, if you will - knowing full well the issue is absurd, or they really have no idea that the AWB is not the only regulation limiting civilian availability of evil black rifles.
Why are they so ignorant? They've been reared through the American educational system. I'm not sure of the validity of stating that since I've been as well, but oh well...
Why are they so ignorant? They've been reared through the American educational system. I'm not sure of the validity of stating that since I've been as well, but oh well...
Personally ill be pretty happy to see the prices on 10 round plus handgun AND rifle magazines go down significantly. Is there a lot more to go? Hell yeah. BUT, for once in a REALLY long time gun control might just roll back a tad. More importantly IF the bill were to be reinstated it would be in a form that is FAR worse than the current ban.
Mark Tyson
Member
Because they are ignorant and don't understand the law or the weapons, or dishonest and they want to push for total disarmament rather than being content with the current infringements.
Amish:
Right now I’m debating the AWB with an “anti†on another forum. Frankly this person is beyond reason because they are absolutely terrified of what he calls assault weapons.
In our discussions I have learned that:
(1) These rifles are especially deadly because they have “pistol grips,†and are “rapid firing†so they can be “fired from the hip†and because of this “they spray bullets around, killing ungodly huge numbers of people.â€
(2) That they have been made more so because they have large-capacity magazines that hold “extra powerful bullets†that are designed “to kill, not wound.â€
(3) That they are “military guns,†that no ordinary person has “any reason too own.â€
Now most anyone reading this here will be giggling by now, but it isn’t funny because this person really believes all of this bull, and he is absolutely serious. I am pretty sure that he lives in a large city, has no experience with guns or shooting, and believes all of this because it’s what anti-gun advocates and mainstream media have fed him. It's the only perspective he knows.
Now some shooters may say, “so what? I don’t own any of those myself. What do I care? What’s the big deal?â€
But remember, if the misnamed assault weapons go, the anti’s will be after something else. And you know what? The individual I described will go right along with them. “Ban one - ban all†is their creed.
And we must never forget that, no matter what particular kind of guns we happen to like. Each time they gain an inch we end up giving away a mile.
Right now I’m debating the AWB with an “anti†on another forum. Frankly this person is beyond reason because they are absolutely terrified of what he calls assault weapons.
In our discussions I have learned that:
(1) These rifles are especially deadly because they have “pistol grips,†and are “rapid firing†so they can be “fired from the hip†and because of this “they spray bullets around, killing ungodly huge numbers of people.â€
(2) That they have been made more so because they have large-capacity magazines that hold “extra powerful bullets†that are designed “to kill, not wound.â€
(3) That they are “military guns,†that no ordinary person has “any reason too own.â€
Now most anyone reading this here will be giggling by now, but it isn’t funny because this person really believes all of this bull, and he is absolutely serious. I am pretty sure that he lives in a large city, has no experience with guns or shooting, and believes all of this because it’s what anti-gun advocates and mainstream media have fed him. It's the only perspective he knows.
Now some shooters may say, “so what? I don’t own any of those myself. What do I care? What’s the big deal?â€
But remember, if the misnamed assault weapons go, the anti’s will be after something else. And you know what? The individual I described will go right along with them. “Ban one - ban all†is their creed.
And we must never forget that, no matter what particular kind of guns we happen to like. Each time they gain an inch we end up giving away a mile.
Waitone
Member
The second amendment war is a war fought over definitions.
The original AWB was based on cosmetics, pure and simple. Those who know anything of firearms technology laugh out loud at the utter asininity of the argumentation. The AWB allowed the creation of an entire class of firearms that does not exist. The creators were then able to insert into public discourse new terms and most importantly the definitions of those terms.
Over time bogus terms are gradually applied to legitimate firearms technology.
How does it work together? AWB is implemented based on cosmetics and creates the term "assault weapon." For ten years we have breathless news coverage about evil assault weapons in the hands of civilians. One popular characterist of an assault weapon is a detachable magazine. Legislation is proposed and passed limiting the number of rounds in detachable magazines. Years later when the AWB is about to sunset replacement legislation is proposed which redifines assault weapons as weapons with detachable magazines. So now instead of evil black rifles being the only target of banning we find evil black rifles and model 1911 semi-automatic pistols. The success of the original AWB in confusing the debate allowed the usual suspects to write replacement legislation which begins the process of confiscation by outlawing entire classes of historically acceptable firearms.
Those who control the language control the debate. Gun control is not about control, it is about confiscation.
The original AWB was based on cosmetics, pure and simple. Those who know anything of firearms technology laugh out loud at the utter asininity of the argumentation. The AWB allowed the creation of an entire class of firearms that does not exist. The creators were then able to insert into public discourse new terms and most importantly the definitions of those terms.
Over time bogus terms are gradually applied to legitimate firearms technology.
How does it work together? AWB is implemented based on cosmetics and creates the term "assault weapon." For ten years we have breathless news coverage about evil assault weapons in the hands of civilians. One popular characterist of an assault weapon is a detachable magazine. Legislation is proposed and passed limiting the number of rounds in detachable magazines. Years later when the AWB is about to sunset replacement legislation is proposed which redifines assault weapons as weapons with detachable magazines. So now instead of evil black rifles being the only target of banning we find evil black rifles and model 1911 semi-automatic pistols. The success of the original AWB in confusing the debate allowed the usual suspects to write replacement legislation which begins the process of confiscation by outlawing entire classes of historically acceptable firearms.
Those who control the language control the debate. Gun control is not about control, it is about confiscation.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Why The AWB Must Die...
Waitone is certainly on the right track.
One of anti's stated goals with the AWB was to "get people accustomed to" gun legislation that restricted firearms availalability, and in that, it has been WILDLY SUCCESSFUL.
Right now, among the uninformed, it is "common knowledge" that certain types of firearms are too {dangerous/military/whatever} for the common man to own.
Having established the cloud of FUD, it then becomes easier to manipulate exactly what comprises a weapon "too dangerous for the common man".
We're currently seeing the anti gun bigots trying desparately to start a dialog about SEMI-AUTOMATIC ACTION, which 15 years ago was a common feature of firearms design that simply wasn't controversial.
(IMO, semi automatic action and magazine feeding are the minimum requirements for a modern militarily useful rifle.)
This wouldn't have been possible without the AWB.
The single most important reason the AWB must die is because in a backhanded kind of way, it legitimizes the "sporterization argument", that perverts the meaning of the 2nd from preserving the rights of the people to have and carry militarily useful firearms for the defense of themselves and the Republic, to preserving the right of the people to have sporting firearms that may or may not be militarily useful, for participation in duck hunting and target shooting.
There are two watershed moments that are upon us.
The first in Silviera vs Lockyer, and the next is the sunsetting of the AWB.
How they turn out may very well determine at minimum the practical application of RKBA, and at maximum have repercussions that impact the very foundation of our Republic, and the principles upon which it stands.
We owe it to ourselves and the future not to screw this up.
Waitone is certainly on the right track.
One of anti's stated goals with the AWB was to "get people accustomed to" gun legislation that restricted firearms availalability, and in that, it has been WILDLY SUCCESSFUL.
Right now, among the uninformed, it is "common knowledge" that certain types of firearms are too {dangerous/military/whatever} for the common man to own.
Having established the cloud of FUD, it then becomes easier to manipulate exactly what comprises a weapon "too dangerous for the common man".
We're currently seeing the anti gun bigots trying desparately to start a dialog about SEMI-AUTOMATIC ACTION, which 15 years ago was a common feature of firearms design that simply wasn't controversial.
(IMO, semi automatic action and magazine feeding are the minimum requirements for a modern militarily useful rifle.)
This wouldn't have been possible without the AWB.
The single most important reason the AWB must die is because in a backhanded kind of way, it legitimizes the "sporterization argument", that perverts the meaning of the 2nd from preserving the rights of the people to have and carry militarily useful firearms for the defense of themselves and the Republic, to preserving the right of the people to have sporting firearms that may or may not be militarily useful, for participation in duck hunting and target shooting.
There are two watershed moments that are upon us.
The first in Silviera vs Lockyer, and the next is the sunsetting of the AWB.
How they turn out may very well determine at minimum the practical application of RKBA, and at maximum have repercussions that impact the very foundation of our Republic, and the principles upon which it stands.
We owe it to ourselves and the future not to screw this up.
Last edited by a moderator:
I also think that most antis have a misconception that all assault rifles are full auto. These people need to be educated on the laws they passed themselves. Even Mrs. Brady doesn't even understand that plastic guns are not all plastic. How stupid is that?
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Amish,
It took me a while to get to the following realization with respect to anti gun bigot politicians:
It's not ignorance.
It's malfeasance.
For them, features of firearms, plastic/military/whatever and all other points of "safety" and "reasonable laws" are just means to an end: disarming the populace.
Their motivations are irrelevant, and they intentionally leverage fear, uncertainty, and doubt to bolster their cause with their constituents. They actively FOSTER the misconceptions you refer to.
Yes, we must educate everyone we meet, because an informed populace will see through the lies.
As for the politicians and professionals who work towards civilian disarmament, they have all been exposed to the facts the belie thier position. They know, at some level that they're wrong, but the believe that it's "for the greater good" puts them into a state of denial.
It took me a while to get to the following realization with respect to anti gun bigot politicians:
It's not ignorance.
It's malfeasance.
For them, features of firearms, plastic/military/whatever and all other points of "safety" and "reasonable laws" are just means to an end: disarming the populace.
Their motivations are irrelevant, and they intentionally leverage fear, uncertainty, and doubt to bolster their cause with their constituents. They actively FOSTER the misconceptions you refer to.
Yes, we must educate everyone we meet, because an informed populace will see through the lies.
As for the politicians and professionals who work towards civilian disarmament, they have all been exposed to the facts the belie thier position. They know, at some level that they're wrong, but the believe that it's "for the greater good" puts them into a state of denial.
Moparmike
Member
Umm, IF that is truely the new definition, you may want to add a slew of bolt-actions to that list, like the Remington 710.
I pray it ends, but if it doesnt, I hope I lose those rifles before it does.
Someone once said that "if it is time to bury your guns, it is time to use them."
- Status
