What's your stance on the proposed assault weapons ban?

[JKimball]

Note that the poll is multiple choice. Select all that apply.

To simplify things, I'm using the term "assault weapon" as defined by the proposed H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007


For details go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

You can also check the thread in Activism: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=258743

I've been surprised by the variety of opinions even amongst ourselves on certain issues, so I wanted to see what people think about this proposed legislation.

 

[benEzra]

Darn it, I didn't realize it was multiple choice until I already voted...

My wife and I both own "assault weapons," I've contacted my legislators, and acceptance of H.R.1022 would absolutely destroy the Second Amendment.

 

[Glockman17366]

First...always remember and reflect this in your posts...we DO NOT own assault rifles.
Assault Rifles are selective fire or full automatic weapons.

We own semi-automatic sporting rifles with detachable standard capacity magazines...that's all.

It's bad enough that anti-rights people mistake our rifles for assault weapons. As knowledgeable owners, we should not make the same mistake and we should correct those who do (especially politicians)

 

[eliphalet]

No one should own or allow others to own so called " assault weapons" or any firearm for that matter, unless they like being a free people.

If you want to be treated like folks in country's that have no guns go there let us here in America be free.

Kinda my opinion.

I have sent several emails and or contacted my represent ivies and the NRA concerning 1022, and the background check infringement being bullied into law restricting my rights as an American citizen.

 

[RNB65]

we DO NOT own assault rifles. Assault Rifles are selective fire or full automatic weapons.

Some of us do.

(I'm not one of them. Too pricey for me. But I know a few folks who do and they occasionally let me play with their toys. Yum, yum! )

 

[JKimball]

Glockman,

I tried to address your concern about the semantics of the term "assault weapon" in my original post. I used that term to keep the questions concise and because it works in the context.

Having said that, I wonder why we would be hesitant to say we own assault weapons rather than semi-automatic sporting rifles. Is it because we are keenly aware that we are essentially being denied the assault weapons that we believe we have every right to own? Or is it an attempt to make the rifles that we currently own somehow seem less scary and therefore discourage the movement to ban them? I think we could be doing more harm than good by taking the latter approach. The way I see it, the second amendment isn't about sporting rifles. It's about weapons you would want to have with you to take into battle. I think we do our cause a disservice when we pussy-foot around that issue.

 

[Agouti]

Brilliantly said.

 

[TehK1w1]

And don't forget folks, the original AWB targeted our handguns as well...

 

[kludge]

I don't use my "standard" capacity semi-automatic rifles or handguns for hunting. I don't refer to them as "sporting" and that's not why I bought them.

I don't refer to them as "assault weapons" either... to me they are just rifles.

I own some, I have contacted my reps, and I am very concerned whenever these things come up.

edit: and yes I believe that the intent of the 2nd and the founders intent was that we all "keep and bear arms." One of the reasons was that a "standing army is the bane of liberty."

 

[AndyC]

What's my stance? Upright on my hind legs with a raised finger towards the politicians who support it.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

kludge has it. They shouldn't be referred to as "assault weapons" or "sporting rifles." They are just rifles. If the mode of operation is important for some reason, say comparing accuracy of bolt action to semi-automatic, one might qualify it with semi-auto. But, there shouldn't be a distinction between any of them.

Calling them assault weapons plays into the fallacy that they are somehow different in than other rifles. Calling them sporting rifles implies that somehow sporting rifles are more legitimate

Be it a Ruger 10/22, a Bushmaster AR-15, a Barrett M82, or a Remington 750, it's just a rifle and they are all equally legitimate.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

AWB = pointless and stupid

The AWB is useless and pointless. All it does is target certain rifles based on cosmetic appearances. If it has an "evil black stock", its an assault weapon. If it has an "evil 30 round magazine", its an assault weapon.:banghead: The people that propogate this crap are utter morons.

Do these people realize that semi-auto hunting rifles fire far more powerfull cartridges, such as .308? Semi-auto hunting rifles also have the same rate of fire. They're not going after those, just those "evil black rifles". Its totally mis-guided and stupid.

High capacity magazines? What's the big deal? If you limit the capacity to 10 rounds, all you're doing is forcing the person to make a couple of extra reloads. Just another "feel good" policy that accomplishes absolutely nothing. These are the same idiots that propogate "rapid fire magazines" and "spray fire from the hip".:banghead: LMAO! All guns are designed to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, duh!

 

[alucard0822]

I own a few semi auto versions of assault rifles, I have written reps, the NRA and a few News outfits to express my disgust with HR1022, Currently I do not think it has much of a chance, but after 08, it, or something even worse may well be a very serious threat. IMO the intent of the 2nd ammendment, has nothing to do with assault weapons, muskets, or plasma rifles in the 40 watt range, it guarantees (or at least is supposed to) the right of the people to modern and effective means to defend themselves from criminals, tyrants, foreign invasion, put food on the table, or any other purpose decent people could think of. Currently the select fire battle rifle, SAW, SMG, LMG, mortar, RPG and a few others are the most effective and modern weapons available, just like the privately owned rifles, muskets, cannon, and even naval warships in private hands in the late 18th century. What hr1022 and bills like it seek to do is deprive us of the best of an already deprived list of effective weapons available to citizens. Guns have little to do with gun control, its the control part that has everything to do with their agenda.

 

[10-Ring]

I know my guns aren't assault rifles as mandated by my state, I shoot fixed 10 round mag rifles

 

[springmom]

Thanks for the reminder. Note will go to Congresscritter tomorrow while I'm doing bills and stuff getting ready to leave.

Springmom

 

[glockman19]

I own assault weapons, or want to own them.

I think the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to have assault weapons.
I have contacted my representative about H.R. 1022 51 33.77%

I'm very concerned that H.R. 1022 will pass if we don't fight diligently enough.

While my "Assult Weapons" are really semi-auto, not fully auto, but appear on the proposed ban list, I will have to buy more befor any law is passed.

M1A, mini-14, AR-15's. I want another M1A, mini-30, a third AR and an AK before any ban goes into effect.

 

[.cheese.]

I think the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to have assault weapons.

I disagree.

I think that the intent of the 2A is to allow the people to have arms and to limit severely the government's intervention in this. However, I don't think we can say the framers of the constitution intended to allow for us to HAVE assault weapons.... instead I think they simply intended to prevent the government from taking away our ability to own "arms".

Of course, some will argue that the framers only were referring to the guns of the period, those aren't arms - they're antiques.. relics.. fossils practically.

In the same way that an original Ford Model T today would not really be considered a "car" (as in - think you can hop on an interstate with one? - I don't think so)..... a musket isn't really "arms". So in the same way that any other technology evolves, "arms" has evolved to include assault weapons, IMO......

however, there's no way the framers knew of what the future would hold gun-wise or anything-wise...... they did probably know things would change though, and I think they intentionally worded the 2A to be able to adapt to such technological change.

Unfortunately, some of those same words have been used by anti-groups to attempt to nullify what I believe our framers' intent was.

 

[Blackbeard]

It's bad enough that anti-rights people mistake our rifles for assault weapons. As knowledgeable owners, we should not make the same mistake and we should correct those who do (especially politicians)

That's right. We own, and they want to ban "assault-style weapons," which are of course not the real thing. Kind of like "blueberry-style muffins."

 

[fletcher]

Kind of like "blueberry-style muffins."

You mean those weren't blueberries?

I contacted my reps about this bill a while back. I don't think it has much of a chance of passing, but that's no excuse to just sit back.

 

[Clipper]

I don't care if my neighbor has a 20mm Oerlikon in his front room...As long as he's not shooting it at the neighbors, what's the problem?

 

[40SW]

I am opposed to the whole notion of lending acceptance or credence to the term "assault weapon". Firearms are only weapons when they are used as weapons. I reject the term outright, and therefore refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy, It should be refered to as the "so called assault weapons ban"., having said that, I am very concerned that it might pass. ,especially if Billary wins.

 

[romma]

While I don't own an assault weapon, I do own one that is being lumped in with so-called assault weapons.

A Bushmaster XM-15 A3

 

[Sharps-shooter]

Under this bill's terminology, a ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon. Have one of them.

I dont even think a full auto rifle is an assault weapon unless it has been used to commit the crime of assault. Just like a Golf club isn't a murder wepon unless it's been used to commit murder. Murder, of course, being the original purpose for which clubs were invented.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

The antis are very good at mixing and matching terms for the ultimate confusion and then predicted response from the ill informed public. The almost outright lie, but it would hard to prove their purjury in a court of law, just because of how slick and practiced their terminology use is. We should be very afraid. We need to do a much better job of educating the folks who might be sympathetic to gun rights and the second amendment, but are scared poopless of machine guns because of gangster movies and an automatic connection in their minds between machine guns and terrorists. These folks don't stop to think that we might need some machine guns to stop terrorists at some point in time. For now, it just scares the living daylights out of them. If they "think" that politicians, newsreporters, police chiefs, etc, are discussing banning machine guns, they'll fall right in line.

I experienced this with my father in law, a retired policeman. He was pro AWB until I explained that they were talking about semi auto firearms only. He said, "I don't think anybody should have a machine gun". I didn't take him into the arguement about why he felt that way. That was for a later date. He can only handle so much at a time. So I told him the AWB had nothing to do with full auto machine guns. I asked him why he thought it did. He replied that he saw a news report discussing the AWB and they were firing a full auto weapon on TV. I explained to him the misleading reports run by NBC mostly. He was surprised. He then said he doesn't have any problem with people owning semi auto firearms. That was enough for one lesson.

Since then, there hasn't been an opportunity to revisit the machine gun debate. I'm of the opinion he would never be moved off of that position, but I'd still like to try some time.



http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=158&issue=019

Anti-gunners` motive behind the AW issue. In 1988, gun-ban activist Josh Sugarmann told "gun control" groups they needed a "new issue" to "strengthen the handgun restriction lobby," because "The issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press and public."32 "It [AWs] will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an `old` debate," he said. "Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns."33

"Gun control" supporters are still lying about machineguns. In 1988, Sugarmann wrote, "The public`s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Soon, CBS, NBC and network affiliates began running videos of machineguns during reports on AWs, a deceit repeated by CNN`s John Zarella and Broward County, Florida, Sheriff Ken Jenne in May 2003.34 Like the L.A. County Sheriff`s deputies` video of a decade ago,35 Zarella`s and Jenne`s mischaracterized AWs` power. President Clinton did his part to trick the public, saying, "I don`t believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people. . . ."36 Sugarmann`s group now pushes the machinegun lie with reckless abandon, using photos of machineguns to spruce up its AW propaganda.37

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

The Idea of an assault weapon has been misconstrued terribly in this country.
I can assault you with my fist or a rock. That makes it an assault weapon. From what I gather from somewhat an original description of an assault weapon. Short round, fully automatic but controllable with a short barrel for short distance warfare. For clearing out the armed enemy from trenches and buildings.
Most people really haven't a clue who enact laws do they?