Assault weapons ban discussion

[boogerhook]

Here is a discussion starter for your friend, the AWB proponent. Don't want to ban any of them, but if it had to be one, it would be the wooden one. Happy to give my reasoning after I let you guys poke at it.

Read More

 

[Flopsweat]

Here is a discussion starter for your friend, the AWB proponent. Don't want to ban any of them, but if it had to be one, it would be the wooden one. Happy to give my reasoning after I let you guys poke at it.

View attachment 303823

Pretty sure I know some of what you're going to say, will check back to hear the rest.

I know what I would tell Hillary, but I can't tell you. Not here anyway.

 

[edslhead]

Not an option.

 

[Caveman Jim]

How about " Ban Nothing"...... except anti constitutional politicians!!!

 

[Boats]

A 10/22 dressed up like an AR is exactly like seeing a cheap Honda hatchback with a wing and a fart can on it.

 

[Flopsweat]

A 10/22 dressed up like an AR is exactly like seeing a cheap Honda hatchback with a wing and a fart can on it.

Except that I'm willing to be seen with the 10/22.

 

[boogerhook]

The point is, that most anti-gunners will not recognize that both are the same gun, just with different furniture. Same caliber, same rate of fire, same magazines, and same "lethality". Of course, an AWB would ban the black one. The reason why I would ban the Boy Scout version instead, is that boy scouts don't shoot semi-automatic rifles. Ironic, right? It's almost as if STIHL would make a "tree hugger version" of a chain saw.

 

[Camelfilter]

I'm curious about folks who've been enthusiasts before, and thru the Clinton assault weapons ban.

Were you able to continue using weapons which were included in the ban, just not sell/buy them. Or?

I know that She might & probably will try to out do what her husband put in place. Just trying to get a feal for what may be prudent purchases now, rather than what I might like to have "someday". I have similar concerns about what Brown might try to do, given what just happened in Massachussets last week.

I'm not talking about grabbing everything in sight out of fear (causing / being a part of a "run" on weapons purchases). For me it's getting particular tools I've thought about having, but in my case getting them sooner than I would have liked. ie I'm not going to buy up 1/2 a dozen AR's (would be nifty though if I could have various flavores...) ha ha!

For example, I made an offer on an AR pistol yesterday. Nice tool, no where near as stable as the regular AR rifle I have. Will be challenging to learn to shoot proficiently, but with training I'll adapt. The ultimate goal for that gun is as a truck / trunk gun (and perhaps learn to modify it). Again, something I had been thinking on for a while.

Were I still living in Mass, I wouldn't have been able to even handle one, just to see what folks in other states can have.

Thanks!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

My understanding of the " Clinton assault weapons ban"
Was that you could still use or sell your pre ban gun , but no new guns could be made , imported or sold if they had certain pre ban features.

All of which just drove the price and demand up for certain guns.
I am not interested in owning any of the so called "assault weapons".
( I dislike this term , but it is what is used ... )
But I am also not wanting any firearm banned or any more restrictions.
Any ban or restriction will affect all gun owners . If one type of gun , magazine or design / feature is banned , then any of the others can be banned as well.
Andy

 

[Camelfilter]

Thanks Andy for the input, appreciate it.

 

[PaulB47]

I bought an AR during the so-called ban, as well as building another, all completely legal. They didn't have bayonet lugs or flash hiders. Big bubbleguming deal!

The real problem with the ban was not so much that it banned anything real, but that it established a precedent that the feds could tell people what they could not buy. And as a practical matter, it didn't even establish that, but only extended what happened back in 1934 with NFA, although the latter got around the ban language (then thought unconstitutional - which it was) by instituting an insanely high tax.

 

[cigars]

What will it take to get it through the leftist' heads that it's not the legal, law abiding gun owners that are the problem? It seems that they prefer to coddle the criminal element and want to nail down the 99% of the people who do nothing wrong and strive to be good citizens. Jumping Jehosophat! We have enough (chewinggum) laws on the books already.

 

[tiggers97]

I've found this site to be a nice one to share. Lots of good info for the uneducated laid out in an orderly fashion.
The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)


And this one for the FUDD's who say they don't care because they have their bolt action hunting rifle and semi-auto pistol... and no one is going to affect those. VOX showed some pictures of various guns and simply asked "should they be banned?". Specifically the results for the Remington 700 w/ scope (hunting rifle).

It speaks both to the amount of misinformation and judgment based on looks. And 'it's the next step' as we hear so often from gun control advocates.
We showed people 11 different firearms. They told us which ones should be banned (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12128686/vox-gun-image-survey-ban-firearms)

 

[Camelfilter]

What will it take to get it through the leftist' heads that it's not the legal, law abiding gun owners that are the problem? It seems that they prefer to coddle the criminal element and want to nail down the 99% of the people who do nothing wrong and strive to be good citizens. Jumping Jehosophat! We have enough (chewinggum) laws on the books already.

It's about increasing their power. If they limit regular folks rights, yet criminals still have access...an obviously flawed circle- but - they - don't - care!

 

[Camelfilter]

I've found this site to be a nice one to share. Lots of good info for the uneducated laid out in an orderly fashion.
The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)


And this one for the FUDD's who say they don't care because they have their bolt action hunting rifle and semi-auto pistol... and no one is going to affect those. VOX showed some pictures of various guns and simply asked "should they be banned?". Specifically the results for the Remington 700 w/ scope (hunting rifle).

It speaks both to the amount of misinformation and judgment based on looks. And 'it's the next step' as we hear so often from gun control advocates.
We showed people 11 different firearms. They told us which ones should be banned (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12128686/vox-gun-image-survey-ban-firearms)

Thanks for that. Might be worthwhile directing aquentances to, if they start a conversation on banning.

 

[bbbass]

For example, I made an offer on an AR pistol yesterday. Nice tool, no where near as stable as the regular AR rifle I have. Will be challenging to learn to shoot proficiently, but with training I'll adapt. The ultimate goal for that gun is as a truck / trunk gun (and perhaps learn to modify it). Again, something I had been thinking on for a while.

I figure my AR pistol, with long tube extension, is good for 25yds. I'm much happier with the results at 7-10 yards tho. I have a reflex optic on it instead of open sights cuz I don't see too well out of my right eye.

I like the quickness of mounting the gun to my check and how fast it points. I favor 20rd mags so its not so draggy when pointing. Just get a good, solid cheek weld and your ready to rock and roll.

-bb

 

[bbbass]

BTW, .223 are much better for me in my pistol than 5.56mm... which I can really feel against my cheek.

 

[Camelfilter]

BTW, .223 are much better for me in my pistol than 5.56mm... which I can really feel against my cheek.

Didn't even think on that, thanks!

 

[bbbass]

Yah well, old guys like me are in a lot of pain already. Gotta keep it down. So I'm wussin on this one.

 

[Outrider]

I'm curious about folks who've been enthusiasts before, and thru the Clinton assault weapons ban.

Were you able to continue using weapons which were included in the ban, just not sell/buy them.

Clinton's ban prohibited regular citizens from buying, transferring, or possessing mags (manufactured after a specific date) for pistols and rifles that exceeded 10 round capacity. It also prohibited the new manufacture of semiautomatic rifles for the regular civilian market that had specific features (e.g. flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and folding or telescoping stocks).

In response, the domestic manufacturers deleted flash hiders and bayonet lugs and pinned the telescoping and folding stocks in a fixed position. If memory serves, imported rifles entered the country with thumbhole stocks to get around the ban on pistol grips.

Depending on the firearm, the price of standard capacity mags doubled or tripled. So a Glock 17 mags that held 17 rounds normally would have cost roughly $25 before the ban cost about $50 during the ban; and a Glock 21 mag that held 13 rounds ran around $75 after the ban.

You could use what you already had. Anything manufactured before the ban had been grandfathered in. Unless prohibited by state law, you could sell so-called pre-ban mags and firearms at a premium.

There was confusion among the rank and file police officers as to what was legal and what was not. You can still find mags and other items made during the ban that are stamped "For Military or Law Enforcement Use Only".

During the ban, a lot of people kept their standard capacity mags in storage to preserve them and used the ten round mags for practice at the range.

If you are thinking of getting stuff due to an impending ban, you should look at what NY and CA have passed to get a sense of the package the anti-gun side is pushing. -Keep in mind that the anti-gun side wants to make whatever you get contraband.

If you know you want to get a particular firearm, you should start buying the mags for it now, before the rush.