obvious. Guns are used to kill people.
The no-ban side's argument is a little more involved, but not without
merit. 1. Responsible gun ownership is a right. 2. The term "assault
weapon" as used in this legislation is a bit of a misnomer. It does
not mean the same as what the military calls an "assault rifle". It
does not mean a fully automatic machine gun (assault rifle). Here are
the details of how an "assault weapon" are determined:
- A semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has
more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or
telescoping stock, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, grenade
launcher, or bayonet lug.
- A semiautomatic shotgun that has more than one of the following
features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, detachable
magazine, fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
- A semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine that
has more than one of the following features: magazine attaches to the
pistol outside the grip, threaded barrel, weight of 1.42 kg or more
unloaded, barrel shroud, or a semiautomatic version of a fully
automatic firearm.
http://www.fact-index.com/a/as/assault_weapons_ban__usa_.html
Things like a pistol grip are liked by some hunters and sportsmen
because it is a more ergonomically comfortable position to hold the
gun. A flash suppressor can be argued to not spook the deer. A
threaded barrel is typically to accomodate a silencer, which is
already deemed illegal under other laws but has been argued would be
good for people who just want to enjoy using guns at a range with less
ear damage.
A big point though is that the same exact guns, or guns that are even
more deadly because of larger caliber or some other factor, but that
do not have the features described above are not banned.
Personally I'm not a fan of the ban. That's because I'm generally a
supporter of individual liberty. I think that responsible gun
ownership IS possible. I also choose to personally not own any guns
because I don't have any need for one and many of the guns used in
violent crimes by strangers are stolen from legal owners.
-Kevin
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:09:24 -0400, Marwan Saidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so I may not be a big fan of firearms, but they are allowed under the
> Constitution and I am much less of a fan of any legislation that erodes our
> rights, BUT:
>
> Why is the continuation of the Assault Weapons ban a big deal? I heard a bit
> on NPR this am about it and I am confused. I know that it is not as simple
> as "The ban keeps these weapons off of the streets" because I know that it
> does not. What I don't understand is why, aside from politics, is it a big
> deal to extend the ban. Is there a tremendous price tag for keeping the ban
> in place? It seems that the Republicans have no desire to bring the issue to
> the floor, so it will expire. The Dems seem to want it brought up, because
> they feel that it will be extended.
>
> I guess what I am asking is that I don't see the need for Uzis, Tec-9s etc.
> to be available at Wal-Mart, so why allow the ban to expire?
>
> (Not wanting to start a flame war, just curious as to why we would not want
> the ban extended)
>
> Marwan Saidi
> Webmaster - PFH
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
