Touchdown for freedom: Senate votes 90-8 against 1994 AWB renewal

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/p...846075e8279d0a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Time to go out and load up on hi cap magazines and flash suppressors. I am so happy right now.

Also:

I mean yeah, what the hell does it matter? We haven't had a Constitution for a while now anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So weird, I thought that it was passed. I read on cnn.com earlier today that it had been passed, but now the story is replaced with one that says it was not passed. Strange.

Anyway, maybe now I can get that Steyer AUG I wanted from GunsAmerica.com (the honors system gun seller) for six bucks in change like its supposed to cost instead of five thousand. Honestly, to make me pay out the nose in order to be able to defend my home with a hail of gunfire like that... its criminal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wait, wait, now I see why I was confused. Hehe, silly stokes, the ban WAS renewed! by a vote of 52-47 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/senate.guns/index.html

a different bill was shot down 90-8

EDIT: ok ok, wait, i keep reading this article... Ok, one bill that had the ban renewal in it was shot down, but the same clause was immidiately then added to another bill, so the status of the ban is still up in the air.

Further EDIT: oh man i can not read about senate proceedings if I have skipped lunch. Upon a third interpretation, it does indeed look to me like the ban was not extended and there isn’t currently another vote up to extend it. So see previous post for my reaction to the subject.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, this issue has me so fucking confused. What state is the AW ban in right now? I can't distern if the senate voted to extend it or not @.@

 

I still havn't eaten anything, but I think, i THINK that what happened is early in the day they voted 52 to 47 to put some amendment on some gun related bill that would extend the assault weapons ban, and the Democrats throught that was pretty fun because the bill they attatched it to would let gun manufacturers not get sued when thier products kill people. Then later in the day, when concidering the bill as a whole the senate voted it down, because it was an odd mishmash of pro-and anti-gun proposals.

 

i was wonding if i ever moved to the states, would I be able to get a M-2 Browning legaly, ofcause it will only be used for home defence, and duck hunting, and the weapon does have a long history.

I also remember reading that it was legal to have weapon mounts in side your car in some states, which leads me to ponder, if i could legaly make a mount for some form of chaingun inside a SUV, ofcause the mount should be able to extend out the care roof or sides, for rabbit/deer hunting and protection from road robers.

p.s. forgot consield weapon, can i run around with a M82A2 under my jacket, with out being stopped every step i take, and how about M18's as garden gnomes.

 

It's confusing, but as far as I'm aware, the Senate voted against it because the bill was poorly written.

 

Yes, believe it or not. In some states you can get permits to own heavy machine guns. Here in Arizona we have a big old expensive shooting club ( http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/ ) where you can fire a Browning M2 and much more, even mounted from a hummer if you like! The only other state that I know for sure allows this sort of thing is Navada.

You can own a hummer and a heavy machine gun, what more do you want? I suppose you'd have to talke to GE if you wanted to get yourself a minigun. . . I have no idea what sorts of laws apply to miniguns and the like, but I assume you might be able to get one in certain states. Interestingly enough there are no laws banning flame throwers or rocket launchers. There are, however laws governing certain types of explosives (again on a state to state sort of basis) so you might be able to work something out there.

If you can hide an M82 under your jacket then I don't think you need a rifle, sir, no one is going to pick a fight with you, and I'd wager that bullets would bounce right off of your thick hide. I'm not sure about that particular rifle, but looking on the net I've found that many AR-15 enthusiasts are into moding out their rifle to fire a .50 caliber round, so I imagine that sniper rifles of that unconventional caliber are legal at least in a few states.

I'd like to note, however that as impractical as a hand gun may be for self defense, an assault rifle, and certainly a heavy machine gun are vastly more impractical despite their increased killing efficiency.

I know that there are a lot of people who are much more knowledgeable about fire arms than I, so if any of you are reading I've got a question. Not being a tactician myself, I was curious to know what sort of benefit an assault rifle or submachine gun can offer a private citizen in his day to day life, especially along the lines of self defense. Due to negative media coverage I'm afraid that the only real opinion I've heard is that Assault rifles are completely impractical for any legitimate defense purposes, and really only good for starting a problem, not solving one.

 

hot hot update action: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113046,00.html

So what happened, which was exceedingly confusing, was that the Senate approved the AWB for another 10 years. Then, a bunch of other retarded shit got tacked onto it, and the end product was so frivilous and unweildy that it got denied. 90-8 is pretty damn unanimous, and I think it's clear that the Senate just thought the bill itself (rather than what it seeked to accomplish) was worthless.

The end result is that the 1994 AWB has not been renewed yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The AWB itself banned the weapons themselves, and a few accessories like high capacity magazines and such. Bans on imported arms were independent of it, although they were often associated with it because they went through amidst the whole post-Columbine kneejerk frenzy. It was a worthless piece of legislation, simply because the jury's still out on what an "assault weapon" even is. This Senator sums it up pretty well:

Other than that though, basically, all the assault weapons ban does is ban guns based for aesthetic reasons. Angular black shapes make soccer moms cry, or something. For instance, whether or not they have a bayonet lug or a grenade launcher (which doesnt matter because grenades are already heavily restricted). The rule is as follows: if a rifle has a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the following features, its an assault weapon:

• Bayonet Lug
• folding or telescoping stock
• pistol grip
• Flash supressor or threaded barrel (note that silencers are already heavily regulated / restricted)
• Grenade Launcher

Then there are some rules for pistols that deal with unloaded weight, whether or not the magazine attaches outside the handgrip (like on a mauser broomhandle) and threaded barrels.

While I'm opposed to do-nothing feel good laws in general, unintended consequences are a bitch. The law, by itself, does nothing. However, in trying to come up with a definition of 'assault weapons', the people behind such legislation (who wouldn't know a breech from a muzzle) often wind up banning relatively innocuous firearms like Hammerli pistols, T/C contenders, flintlock muskets, and boating flare guns.

 

"Assault weapon". Isn't that the same as saying "cutting blade" or "wet water" or "stinky bullshit"?

 

It's not even that accurate. It's been my experience that people who actually refer to something like a Colt M4 as an "assault" weapon have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and just want to criminalize the weapon itself.

 

I believe that an attempt at defining “Assault weapons” is generaly a shameless attempt to help remove all of those guns which were designed specifically for engaging multiple armed people as fast, accurately, or stealthily as possible. This would certainly explain the ban on high-capacity magazines, which certainly make it much easier to kill more people, fully automatic fire, which certainly makes it easier to down a target being that with a single pull of the trigger you generally get three rounds or more into them all at once; also things like flash hides and silencers which makes it a bit harder to detect you. I suppose the philosophy (silly as this may be) is that these sort of purely aesthetic accessories actually do provide some strategic benefit in the pursuit of killing several people in a single engagement, and serve no other purpose than that. I know it seems pretty ridiculous, frankly I don’t know where the idea came from, but every military in the world sure seems hung up on the idea, as well.

Another thing that bugs me is the police. Hey, don’t get me wrong, I love law and order, but I’ve heard that every single police organization in the nation is for the AWB and it’s extenuation. I guess they’re just being selfish about the whole thing, really, if a criminal is going to be shooting at them I suppose they’d rather it be with a low capacity magazine handgun that gives them away right when they fire it, rather than a hale of 7.62x39 rounds fired from an AK-47 which their body armor couldn’t possibly hope to stop. If they looked at it differently, though, and realized that if all citizens in the US were allowed to own such weapons then crime itself would decrease because any citizen would be able to help them out by engaging in long and dangerous fire-fights with angry criminals using their own assault rifles. That’s what I call being a good citizen!

Furthermore it’s absurd to think that criminals won’t be able to get ahold of banned “assault weapons”. After all, they are criminals, right? They’ll probably just steal them! I’m pretty sure that the average gang-banging mexicano homie in the inner city would find it just as easy to get his own full auto Mac11 submachine gun through shady smuggling deals as buying it nice and legally from the gun-shop down the street. Yes, technically the use of these banned “assault weapons” has gone down drastically in the past ten years since the AWB was put into effect, but really what does that fact say when you think about it?

 

Back in 1994, in Hollywood, there was that incredible shootout between two armed bank robbers carrying...guess what...perfectly legal "assault" weapons (semi automatic) and underarmed police officers. The cops were pinned down and utterly outgunned until reinforcements showed up with AR-15s.

AR-15s bought from a local gun shop.

Lucky for them they were still legal for purchase then, and it didn't happen a few years later.

 

I don't really see the purpose of a Assault weapons ban, A shotgun is alot more dangerous in the hands of a mass murderer than an assault rifle just cause he has to pump it doen't mean he's going to kill less people.
As far as Law Enforcement is concerned the criminals already have pre-AWB weapons and they can still acquire more from over the border. I think Law Enforcement would be just as happy if a law was made requiring "Assault Weapon" owners to have a gun safe so they can properly secure their weapons and make them take a saftey class so the assault weapons owners don't moronically blast themselves when there trying to clean it. A police officer friend of mine (I'm probably going to get flamed for that) just spent half a day filling out a report on accidental discharge. Aparantly old ammo and an even older shotgun is not something to be playing with when your drunk and smoking weed. My friend said the victim(of his own stupidity) looked like spilled spaghetti with extra red sauce.

 

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun970228.htm

Except for very special circumstances, fully automatic weapons are illegal everywhere in the US.

Here in California, "assault" weapons have been illegal since 1989, thanks to one lone psycho:

http://www.guncite.com/LATimesASW/weapon1a.htm

For me it is more about freedom in general than anything else. I don't have the money for any of these weapons. But I dislike the demonization of a piece of machinery because it looks "evil". And that is really the driving force behind this sort of legislation.

 

The ignorance about guns here blows my mind. I think this is the bulk of the problem surrounding anti-gun legislation.

First, has anyone done a comprehensive study that proves the Assault Weapons Ban has reduced crime? (I'll answer this one) No, because nobody can prove this.
Also, assault rifles are rarely the choice of the common felon. They are used in only a small fraction of crimes.
Second, Mystech, assault rifles are commonly used for hunting purposes (as silly as this sounds to some of you) in semi-automatic versions. The SKS and AK-47 semi-auto variants both chamber the 7.62X39 which makes for a fine deer round when used at moderate range with soft-point bullets. The AR-15 and it's variants make for a fine varmint (small game) rifle. It's .223 round is highly accurate to 300+ yards. All of the above make for a fine home security system as well. If I were a criminal and saw one of these pointed at me as I tried to break in, I think I would retreat like a Frenchman, and quickly.
Third, no one can legally purchase a Steyer AUG anonymously over the internet,Moose.
Fourth, yes Repo man, in many states a law abiding citizen CAN legally own a full-auto firearm. They must first pass a Federal background check, pay a 200 dollar tax (last I checked), and have their finger prints and photo taken.
Fifth, Mystech, high capacity magazines have not been banned. The manufacture of them in the US has been banned. (only for civilian use) One can still purchase used hi-cap magazines at an albeit high price. And this only applies to handguns.
Sixth, Stokes, I'm pretty sure I'm on your side, but where the hell did you hear about "some rules for pistols that deal with unloaded weight". I think you are mistaken.

 

Rather than go into the details of the red tape necessary to obtain full auto weapons legally, I just said "Except for very special circumstances, fully automatic weapons are illegal everywhere in the US."
I stand by that statement.

The number of people who are willing to pay the money and allow the invasion of privacy necessary for full auto weapons is very small.
My brother the gun nut has seriously considered getting one, but he told me that you have to allow BATF agents free access to your home. That was too much for him.

The only reason I mentioned them at all was to make sure that Mystech understood that we are not talking about full auto here, which is a common mistake.

 

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976353949.htm Gunsamerica, the "honor system" gun classifieds!

Being sold bo "Christian soldier" eh? Man, that sounds like a legitimate seller to me! Hey, but then there's dozens of other people on that site selling AUGs, surely ONE of them is a reputable dealer!

AUGs are expensive little bitches aren't they? Note that this is no ordinary auction site, all they do is match up sellers with buyers and trust you to let them in on a little bit of the money exchanged. I wonder how many of the sellers take cash. Oh, and that's Steyr, sparky.

 

Mystake,

*yawn*
Again you show your immane ignorance. The site clearly states that one must transfer the guns through a licensed FFL dealer. Being "reputable" is irrelevant. Having a wacky name like "Christian soldier" is irrelevant. Being legal is relevant. It's no different than if I wanted to sell one of my Rugers to my neighbor. I would have to abide by the law and transfer it through an FFL dealer.

Also, “the honors system gun classifieds” refers to ones choice of paying the site a small fee if they help you find a buyer. Don’t try to mislead people. There is enough ignorance regarding guns everywhere already.

Lastly, as a self proclaimed gun expert, I know how to spell Steyr. I was merely spelling it the way your butt buddy Mooseboy spelled it. Sorry, I should have put quotes around it or something when I did this.

 

Except for the National Institute of Justice, which has done a study that proves that the number of crimes involving assault weapons has dropped dramatically. Gun nuts whine and bitch that the report does not also claim that gun related crimes have dropped, but guess what, If im an ATF agent I would far prefer to be assaulted with an 9mm handgun that can be stopped by my body armor, than an assault rifle that will splatter my guts across the back of said armor.

Here is a link to an article about the study, with a downloadable PDF of said study:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=546

And if you are as much of a dope as I think you are, you will protest a link to the brady campaign, so here is a link to awsunset.com an orginization that is just madd as hell about the bradycampaigns smugness in being able to demonstrate that the aw ban is having positive affect.

http://www.awbansunset.com/effects.html

and even fewer crimes thanks to the law

Then tell my pals of the encounter and return to retrieve this penis extension... er, home safety device, for my own criminal needs. Most burglaries are committed when the home owner is not at home (So good luck defending it with your gun) and fire arms are one of the most commonly stolen items in burglaries. A "responsible gun owner" friend of mine had this happen to him just recently in fact.