Skip to comments.Kill the assault rifle ban? YES
Posted on 08/09/2004 7:30:18 AM PDT by neverdem
The 1994 semiautomatic or so-called assault weapons ban expires Sept. 13. The media drumbeat to reauthorize it has begun, and some politicians are dancing to the familiar tune. Instead of merely reauthorizing the ban, however, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-L.I.) seeks to ban more guns and implement a national registration scheme. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the assault weapons ban sponsor, said on CBS' "60 Minutes," "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in - I would have done it." The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly.
This new legislation is one step toward that agenda.
The assault weapon debate is ruled by emotion, not fact. That's why in the elections following enactment of the ban, gun owners went to the polls in great numbers and, for the first time in 134 years, unseated the speaker of the House. That's why President Bill Clinton told the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "The fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress." That's why in March 1996, 239 members of the House voted across party lines to repeal the Clinton gun ban.
The debate is not about so-called assault weapons. It's about banning guns. Anti-gun advocates claim, without credible evidence, these guns are the weapons of choice for criminals. It's a lie. A day after the gun ban was signed into law, a Washington Post editorial admitted, "Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a steppingstone to broader gun control."
The radical Violence Policy Center states: "The public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns vs. semiautomatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Fully automatic machine guns were, of course, effectively banned in 1934.
As the drumbeats roll and attempts to dismantle the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans continue, the National Rifle Association will continue to fulfill its 133-year-old tradition of preserving freedom for law-abiding Americans.
Cox is executive director of National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action.
????? - More like heavily regulated - but anyone who has the time and money can buy them legally.
They also need to live in the right jurisdiction.
It's gonna happen, one day. And the Search & Seizure laws will go out the airlock along with RKBA - because they'll come for them.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to own one.
I wouldn't want to either.
I think their relative scarcity in the US is due more to the impracticality of owning them rather than any legal strictures.
If gang-bangers wanted to use full-auto on a regular basis, they would.
But I can think of only one crime in the past decade or so that involved a full-auto.
If such a thing passes, and a confiscation scheme goes into effect, ...</p>
It'd be time to go after them BEFORE they come for you. A proactive approach towards defending yourself as it were.
What about the word 'effectively' in the statement that you attempt to controvert?
Like the word 'infringed' that is so widely ignored, even by the national reasonable-regulation ass types.
Banning guns will not and has not (where it is tried) prevented their use in crimes especially.
Regulating automatic weapons will not and has not prevented their use either.
Both efforts violate the words of the Constitution.
Ignorance is their most effective tool.
The scarcity is due to limited supply and the resultant high expense - there are only a finite number of legal Class III/ full auto receivers available, and recent manufacture machine guns are not legal for non-governmental entities to own, period.
If new receivers were legal, you would see a volcano of full auto enthusiasm erupt. Right now, it's just the same old tired guns being passed around - as they wear out and disintegrate, no more will be available.
That's the NFA/ full auto dirty little secret.
Sounds like a pretty damn big "infringement" to me.
Yeah. Tell ya what sweetheart, why don't you come and get 'em?
Anytime you think you're man enough, Diane - you just step right up.
We appreciate your observations, and agree. May we add this thought: Carefully aimed semi-automatic rifle fire, delivered by brave and determined men can prove decisive. The U.S. Army marched from Normandy to Berlin into the teeth of fully-automatic fire from MP-40s. Most of our grunts carried 8-round Garands. A good eye, ammo discipline and grim-a&& determination will win the day.
I don't buy the premise.
Legal or illegal, a market will develop for something if people really want it.
You know what that would mean. CWII ping.
Except that new ones were banned in 1986. Yes, there are some re-wats and such available. But you can't buy a newly produced M-16 from FN or Colt.
The little Nazi isn't going to get them any other way, after all.
That's fine, but others would, myself included. (they are hoot to shoot!). More importantly the Consitution says that we, the people, can own them without any interferance from the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.