ban included a couple of powder loaded civil war
relics and that pissed off collectors.
Also, only fully-auto uzi's are banned. You can buy a
semi-auto uzi and saw off the pin in 5 minutes making
it fully-auto. The point is the ban was just for show
anyway.
-sm
--- Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the "ban" side's motivations for extending
> the ban are
> 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]
