Assault weapons ban

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: JDub02
for the past 10 years, the AWB did NOTHING!! Let it die, so I can build my AR the way I want to.

In less than a month, I'm ordering up the rest of the parts to go along with the stripped lower receiver sitting in my closet. M4 style, 16" barrel, flash hider, collapsible stock, and a couple 30 round mags. I'll probably burn through a case of ammo in about a week.

alright...I'm sorry. how the hell do you justify a flash hider as a necessity? I can see absolutely no way anyone could legitemately defend the need for something like a flash hider, shell catcher, or silencer. Someone please enlighten me as to why this is necessary for self-defense and relates in any way to the second amendment.

Who in the hell says it's for self defense anyway?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Attorney General Bill Lockyer planned to be on hand for a news conference this morning to support renewal of the federal law. Also expected to attend were Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn, Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

The news conference was planned outside the Bank of America in North Hollywood -- the scene of a 1997 robbery that culminated in a shootout between two heavily armed gunmen and LAPD officers.

Police conceded they were outgunned by the robbers, who wore body armor and were armed with machine guns. Ultimately, both were killed.

The federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semiautomatic assault weapons, including the AK-47, Uzi and TEC-9. It will expire on Sept. 13, unless renewed by Congress

I've been hearing this on the news the past few days and it is just irritating the hell out of me. These windbags are actually using that shootout as a reason to renew the AWB from 1994 which is about to sunset out on Sept. 13. The fact of the matter is that the guns used in that crime in 1997 were fully automatic weapons which are heavily restricted in a few states in the US and illegal in most, including California. The AWB has nothing to do with the guns used in that crime.

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I don't understand how this could be a surprise. This is how the media has always operated, and a very effective means of purposely misleading while not actually lying. Almost every story on the TV news is like this.
For example, had the Brady Bill been in place before 1981, it still would not have stopped Hinckley from having his gun and thus Brady and Reagan from being shot. The law was (and is) worthless, except as a means of control.

The AWB is the same thing. Just one step in an agenda to outlaw all guns to the public by using the guise that guns should be only for sporting purposes. Naturally, that is BS. The reasons that guns are legal in the US under the 2nd Amendment is to (1) empower the free citizenry in order to keep the government in check, and (2) the framers of the Constitution understood that a citizen-soldier army, fighting for its own land and freedom, is the potentially the most powerful of all (being necessary to the security of a free state). Concerned more with power than the security of our country, these political forces are pushing these anti-gun agendas in order to further erode the freedoms of the people and further secure their authoritarian power over the people. The AWB is a means to this end, not just by taking and keeping away guns, but by brainwashing the people into believing things about guns and gun ownership that are not true.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Don't worry, Bush will not sign it to protect our rights.

HAHAHAHAHA yeah he wouldnt do such a thing now would he? bwhahahah

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Don't worry, Bush will not sign it to protect our rights.

HAHAHAHAHA yeah he wouldnt do such a thing now would he? bwhahahah

Like what waggy is saying, Bush has said he fully supports the extension - however, to "appease" the pro-gun Republicans, he's not actively pushing Congress on the issue. If it ever gets to him though - he will sign it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Don't worry, Bush will not sign it to protect our rights.

HAHAHAHAHA yeah he wouldnt do such a thing now would he? bwhahahah

My recollection (which admittedly may be faulty) is that he's said he will sign it if it comes across his desk.

 

[Vic]

Republicans should not fool themselves into believing that their party is actually pro-gun.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Don't worry, Bush will not sign it to protect our rights.

HAHAHAHAHA yeah he wouldnt do such a thing now would he? bwhahahah

Like what waggy is saying, Bush has said he fully supports the extension - however, to "appease" the pro-gun Republicans, he's not actively pushing Congress on the issue. If it ever gets to him though - he will sign it.

I don't think he really gives a damn. Bush is betting that the bill will never land on his desk so he won't be forced to actually make a decision (before November at least).

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Vic
Republicans should not fool themselves into believing that their party is actually pro-gun.

If only the LP was bigger...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: JDub02
for the past 10 years, the AWB did NOTHING!! Let it die, so I can build my AR the way I want to.

In less than a month, I'm ordering up the rest of the parts to go along with the stripped lower receiver sitting in my closet. M4 style, 16" barrel, flash hider, collapsible stock, and a couple 30 round mags. I'll probably burn through a case of ammo in about a week.

alright...I'm sorry. how the hell do you justify a flash hider as a necessity? I can see absolutely no way anyone could legitemately defend the need for something like a flash hider, shell catcher, or silencer. Someone please enlighten me as to why this is necessary for self-defense and relates in any way to the second amendment.

Aside from the words "shall not be infringed"...

A flash hider doesnt hide the flash from everyone. It lessens the flash seen by the person shooting, thus helping to prevent night blindness.

Silencers are very nice if you plan on doing a lot of shooting. Even with ear protection, you can hurt your ears from popping off a couple hundred rounds of ammo in a day. Plus, in reality, silencers are not like they show in the movies. A little 4" long, 1.5" wide silencer does not make a 45 ACP whisper quiet. It still makes a lot of noise. Just not quite as much.

If you know anyone who reloads their own ammo, you wouldnt ask about a shell catcher. Anything that reduces the amount of time I spend policing up my brass is good, imo.

Silencers are not regulated by the AWB. Neither are shell catchers, to my knowledge.

I'm pretty sure silencers are illegal and have been for many many years. Shell catchers are not illegal. Flash supressors in no way make a firearm any more or less lethal. It's like outlawing a gun because it has a pistol grip or because it is black or camo or has a synthetic stock or because it has a bayonette mount on it. I'd like to see some figures for the number of people stabbed to death by a bayonette on the end of an assault rifle. I bet that number is nil. :roll:

How do you defend taking away a flash supressor? Because you don't see any need for it? Dumbest argument ever. :thumbsdown:

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Don't worry, Bush will not sign it to protect our rights.

HAHAHAHAHA yeah he wouldnt do such a thing now would he? bwhahahah

Like what waggy is saying, Bush has said he fully supports the extension - however, to "appease" the pro-gun Republicans, he's not actively pushing Congress on the issue. If it ever gets to him though - he will sign it.

I don't think he really gives a damn. Bush is betting that the bill will never land on his desk so he won't be forced to actually make a decision (before November at least).

Considering Bush is from Texas you're probably right. We all have guns down here

 

[K1052]

Silencers are covered in the Gun Control Act of 68. Same restrictions as SBRs.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: K1052
Silencers are covered in the Gun Control Act of 68. Same restrictions as SBRs.

Yeah, I just did a little research. They aren't illegal just heavily restricted by the BATF.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Meh. Nothing compared to the amendment to it that would include a ban on pretty much any semi-automatic handgun, rifle, and shotgun.

Bill Summary & Status for the 108th Congress
...
...
...

Full text

Namely, I think you missed an important part of it:

A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event

Thanks, that must be what all the hoopla was about. Knew there was some reason everyone was getting their panties in a bunch.


Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

:roll:

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: booger711
very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

The only time we're trained to shoot for the head is after putting two in the chest at close range. I take it you haven't done much practical handgun training.

Originally posted by: DonVito
True that. On average, police officers score hits with something like 15% of their shots at assailants. Also, they are not trained to aim for the head - hitting a moving target the size of a head is incredibly tough.

Yeah, it's 17%.

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Hell, try and hit a car at 100 yards with a 9mm handgun while under stress. That's an aweful long range for a handgun. I would say 25 yards would be about the max for a reasonable shooter with your typical semi-auto sidearm.

25 yards is the longest distance we shoot from during qualification. If things get longer than that we pull out the carbines and/or call in SET.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: K1052
Silencers are covered in the Gun Control Act of 68. Same restrictions as SBRs.

Yeah, I just did a little research. They aren't illegal just heavily restricted by the BATF.

 

[Softballslug]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: K1052

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

True that. On average, police officers score hits with something like 15% of their shots at assailants. Also, they are not trained to aim for the head - hitting a moving target the size of a head is incredibly tough.

Where were the police snipers at????? They are trained to hit small moving targets. One shot between the peepers and its game over. Also, why did they continue to use 9mm knowing that the body armor would stop it? If its not working ADAPT!!! They could have easily gotten a 7MM Rem Magnum and blow the assailants kidneys out the backside... But the reason they don't, do this is for fear of getting sued...

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Softballslug

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: K1052

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

True that. On average, police officers score hits with something like 15% of their shots at assailants. Also, they are not trained to aim for the head - hitting a moving target the size of a head is incredibly tough.

Where were the police snipers at????? They are trained to hit small moving targets. One shot between the peepers and its game over. Also, why did they continue to use 9mm knowing that the body armor would stop it? If its not working ADAPT!!! They could have easily gotten a 7MM Rem Magnum and blow the assailants kidneys out the backside... But the reason they don't, do this is for fear of getting sued...

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read that link about the shooting?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Softballslug

Originally posted by: DonVito
True that. On average, police officers score hits with something like 15% of their shots at assailants. Also, they are not trained to aim for the head - hitting a moving target the size of a head is incredibly tough.

Where were the police snipers at????? They are trained to hit small moving targets. One shot between the peepers and its game over. Also, why did they continue to use 9mm knowing that the body armor would stop it? If its not working ADAPT!!! They could have easily gotten a 7MM Rem Magnum and blow the assailants kidneys out the backside... But the reason they don't, do this is for fear of getting sued...

No police snipers use a 9x19mm as their primary weapon, AFAIK.

EDIT: also, the police to have to worry about what happens after that 7mm exits the target.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Softballslug

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: K1052

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

True that. On average, police officers score hits with something like 15% of their shots at assailants. Also, they are not trained to aim for the head - hitting a moving target the size of a head is incredibly tough.

Where were the police snipers at????? They are trained to hit small moving targets. One shot between the peepers and its game over. Also, why did they continue to use 9mm knowing that the body armor would stop it? If its not working ADAPT!!! They could have easily gotten a 7MM Rem Magnum and blow the assailants kidneys out the backside... But the reason they don't, do this is for fear of getting sued...

It took some time for SWAT to get on the scene. The whole event only lasted about twenty minutes

Though as I recall, they opted to roll up on the last guy in a car and procceded to unload a few MP5s at close range.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Softballslug
Where were the police snipers at????? They are trained to hit small moving targets. One shot between the peepers and its game over. Also, why did they continue to use 9mm knowing that the body armor would stop it? If its not working ADAPT!!! They could have easily gotten a 7MM Rem Magnum and blow the assailants kidneys out the backside... But the reason they don't, do this is for fear of getting sued...

Police snipers aren't just posted on rooftops around town--they're part of the SWAT/SET/SRT unit and need to be called-up. Sometimes they're working patrol, sometimes they're off-duty, sometimes they're training. It takes time for them to respond & get set up. In the case of the West Hollywood shoot-out, the robbers were constantly on the move around town, which means there would be pretty much no way to set up a sniper unit effectively.

There were Officers who ran into gun stores to grab rifles because the 9MM wasn't penetrating. Do you know anything about the situation?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

My Ruger 10/22:
Generally considered a not-massively-dangerous target rifle.

My Ruger 10/22+bipod+scope:
An assault rifle by California's definition. To me, it'd be an even better target rifle.

Same ammo, same firing rate, same person. How a BIPOD AND SCOPE translate to assault rifle (usually those things AREN'T on assault rifles..)

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I was reading that exact same thing on AR-15.com. It's ridiculous really. Isn't LA SWAT armed to the tooth anyway? Of course the avg traffic schmuck cop's 9mm isn't going to do shlt against robbers going full auto with armor. It was funny when I heard they raided a gun shop

very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

Hell, try and hit a car at 100 yards with a 9mm handgun while under stress. That's an aweful long range for a handgun. I would say 25 yards would be about the max for a reasonable shooter with your typical semi-auto sidearm.

I could hammer a car at 100 yards with a pistol... A person is another matter. Especially if that person has a bullet hose aimed at you. That whole situation was unavoidable. A freak occurance. How often does something like that happen?

Oh, and silencers aren't illegal. They just require a license from the feds. Texas has no state laws governing them. You can order them on the internet. I've looked into them for some of my handguns.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
My Ruger 10/22:
Generally considered a not-massively-dangerous target rifle.

My Ruger 10/22+bipod+scope:
An assault rifle by California's definition. To me, it'd be an even better target rifle.

Same ammo, same firing rate, same person. How a BIPOD AND SCOPE translate to assault rifle (usually those things AREN'T on assault rifles..)

Well, obviously, the addition of a bipod and scope make it a weapon suitable for shooting only at slow moving targets at close range. Because that is what an assault rifle is. Just ask klixxer.

To be serious: dont look for logic in assault weapons laws.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Mookow

No police snipers use a 9x19mm as their primary weapon, AFAIK.

EDIT: also, the police to have to worry about what happens after that 7mm exits the target.

Yeah, this is completely false (unless he was talking about their service pistol, which is irrelevant to their work as snipers). There's no such thing as a sniper rifle built around 9mm Luger ammo, and police snipers can and do use powerful rifle rounds.

Unlike the military in combat, police regularly use hollowpoint rounds, which are prohibited under the Geneva Convention in military settings because they inflict unnecessary cruelty. In fact I recall a documentary about the LAPD snipers in which they used a rifle with .50 BMG ammo, a round that is not typically used for antipersonnel purposes in the military (though it is not, per a common urban legend, illegal under the law of war).

Obviously, police snipers do have to be highly cognizant of their environment, to avoid unnecessary collateral damage if they miss or their round overpenetrates.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I could hammer a car at 100 yards with a pistol... A person is another matter. Especially if that person has a bullet hose aimed at you. That whole situation was unavoidable. A freak occurance. How often does something like that happen?

Oh, and silencers aren't illegal. They just require a license from the feds. Texas has no state laws governing them. You can order them on the internet. I've looked into them for some of my handguns.

Hell, I could too. But in a stressful situation? I wouldn't want to bet on it. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

I checked the regulations governing silencers. They are heavily restricted by the BATF and they are not legal for sale or use in CA by individuals.