The 1994 assault weapon ban did nothing to control crime. Of course gun control is not really about crime, fear of violent crime is just a lame excuse from the wuss liberals to ban our guns. Gun Control is really part of a larger cultural war.

Anyway, the Assault Weapon Ban ended at midnight last night. Things are looking good for our side. More and more states are allowing CCW (Concealed Carry Weapons), and of course crime is going down because of it.

I'm sort of interested to see how this is going to effect things. I don't have any opinions about gun control whatsoever, to be honest. I can't see keeping people from legally owning weapons being a good thing, however. So... yeah... that's all I have to say. Bet you cared about that.

The AWB sunset is really just a moral victory.

I take it that you lean Libertarian?

If I have to choose....

And I do now! Isn't that fantastic?!

More guns=less crime

Yeah, baby! I'm glad this law is ending. More laws should have a sunset clause.

Thank god you're back, Sixgun. I need help here.

So do you guys envisage assault weapons being used by the general public in order to cut crime? And if so, do you think it would be a good thing?

I'm surprised to find so many pro-gun people on here, but happy none the less. Perhaps some of you could help enlighten me, what exactly qualifies as an "assault weapon"? I was under the impression that an assault weapon was anything fully automatic, but I have a hard time beleiving we've gone from the stranglehold we used to have on guns to legalizing full auto, literally, overnight. Some idiot one the news said that it meant people could not buy semi-auto weapons, as if it wasn't already legal... Lord help me, I'm actually begining to listen to the news.

So what's the deal with this? What new liberties may a newly turned 20 year old like myself enjoy now that the ban's expired?

I really don't feel comfortable with a gun in my house (I have a small child, and regardless of saftey precautions she might get to it) by I do see why some people feel the need for them. I think a little more thourough back ground check should be required in order to get them. However I do get the mental picture of an invasion of rednecks armed with semi-auto's more frieghtening than any criminal menace.

Hmm.. after a little research, this lift on assault weapons does not appear to be anything beyond a "we've gained some ground!" victory. I mean, what exactly the hell DO we need bayonet and grenade launcher fittings on our guns for? From a libertarian standpoint those things shouldn't have been taken away in the first place just because it's suppression of the choice to decide for yourself, but from a logical standpoint it doesn't really matter much that these things have been gained back... actually, I think this would be one of the few times I might say that the lift on assault weapons does about squat for Americans who use guns for defense and/or sport, and gives a fairly significant advantage to those who would use such things to do harm.

So here I am, staring the facts right in the face. And my response? I think it's good the ban was lifted, anyways. It's unfortunate that more freedom will often lead to more deaths, but I think this country should stay loyal to the ideals it was founded upon. Anyone who's fearful of this should move to someplace where they can feel safer. I know that sounds like a bullshit conservative redneck cliché', but honestly, so many countries have a ban on guns, period, the US is one of the last places with a functional government that you can still exercise freedom in. It's like a free zone, a dark paradise. Check out the movie Escape from LA, and it's kinda like that.

This lift on the assault weapon ban could also be fortunate for the general populace in the more far out and extreme scenarios that we'll probably never see in our life time. If our government crumbles and our society breaks down, or becomes overpowering and begins to take away other more important freedoms... well, a lot of left wingers say that the second amendment was only to dispel foreign dictators, but I say it was to dispel or keep in check any oppressive powers, be they foreign or domestic dictators or aggressors.

I think it's funny that of all the ideals that the founders of this country cherished-it's the right to bear arms that people cling to more than any other. the democratic process has been subverted by corporate interests but at least we have the right to arm ourselves with grenade launchers? I think our priorities may need to be reexamined

I'm trying to understand why people would need fully automated high-power assault weaponry that are capable of killing a multitude of Humans in a matter of seconds.
Even the police don't have full-auto weaponry that some Citizens are now legalized to have.

So why exactly do people need it? There's no reason to have such a weapon, save if you're just a collector. Which, in my opinion, means you should be exempt from the ban so long as you can have some manner of proof that it is for collection purposes and not firing.

The assualt weapon ban wasn't about full-auto weapons. Only collectors are allowed to have full-auto weapons, and the ATF does a full anal probe background check on anyone who applies for the permit. I think it is legal to fire them on a range, but you need another permit for that. The ATF controls full-auto weapons very closely.

The ban only affected weapons with a certain cosmetic appearance, and high-capacity magazines. While the ban was in effect, you could still buy semi-automatic rifles that performed the same, but they didn't have pistol grips, flash suppressors, and the magazine only held 10 bullets. It was a useless law anyway.

As I said, if this is not your cup of tea, move, there's plenty of other countries out there who reflect your opinions. Give America the chance to work without messing with it's founder's intentions.

And ALSO as I was saying before, if those corporate interests should begin to take too much power for themselves and become an oppressive power, there will be use for assault weapons. No one likes the idea of revolution, but the threat of one is ALWAYS needed to keep governments and other powers in check. If we are disarmed then we have less ability to support that power check.

You know one of the reasons the Japs said they never attempted a mainland invasion of the US? It's because they knew our citizens were armed. What the hell use is it trying to keep a stranglehold on something that's going to shoot at you?

And after all this you're still for some reason dumbfounded as to why people cling to the second amendment? You ever stop to think that maybe there's a reason that it was considered so important that it was made the second item on the bill of rights? Without that one, the rest of them are just ideas with nothing to support them but the ruling power's word. I will now re-enact a scene from "The Last Samurai":

Katsumoto: My sword protected this council when...

Omura: We are a nation of LAWS, we need no protection.

(Omura has Katsumoto escorted away by a cadre of ARMED guards.)

Really? That's funny. I always thought it was because they wouldn't have got within 1000 miles of the mainland without getting right royally sunk, but I will defer to your point if you provide a cite for it.

Awesome. Making a point by referring to a Hollywood film perfectly illustrates the extraordinary extent to which mindless fiction has a serious effect on public opinion.

Would you prefer me to go into it a little bit more? I'm very sorry, I made the assumption more people may have seen the movie than were fluent in the history of the crossover of the Tokugawa Shogunate into the Meiji era of Japan.

Saigo Takamori was a Samurai who helped put the Meji emperor back into power. He was under the impression that this would be a return to the way the Japanese government was originally set up, with the Emperor, a direct decendent of the Japanese Sun Goddess, at the top and a heirarchy downwards. This was not the case. Emperor Meiji reformed Japan, started industrializing. The sentiment of the time was that warriorship was no longer valued, so much as soldiering was (and there IS a difference.). Saigo Takamori's life reads like a helpless war romance, putting back to power one things he beleived highly in only to have it destroy everything else that meant something to him. Saigo rebelled, knowing full well that he had no chance of winning, and his life ended as he commited seppuku on a cliff overseeing the oceans of Kyushu. His rebellion was small, the Meiji government kept alive the tradition of arming only it's soldiers, leaving it's citizens, many of whom would have joined Saigo's rebellion because it was organized on the southernmost island of the Japanese island chian, powerless to lend support to the side they beleived in. Industry had won over tradition.

Of course, many people say, "Well sad as that is, industry was the best thing for Japan.". That logic only works until the year 1945 If they hadn't given in to pressure to industrialize so quickly, if the people had been able to actually keep thier own damn government in check, I think the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing may have been overted.

So, in sumation, guns used to secure peace in land, but kept from people afterwards leading to many years of peace, but peace under tyrannical rule and often very poor living conditions. Guns brought back to usher in Meiji restoration, again everything looks splendid, people even begin to live under better conditions than before, but when Hirohito rises to power, again the people without arms to match their government are helpless to stop the warmonger from trying to expand into China, Korea, Russia and the ultimate act of stupidity, attacking Pearl Harbor. Result: Two bombs, many deaths.

And modern Japan? People enjoy the comfort of living in cubes, sleeping in drawers and paying for fresh oxygen. And why? Because the general populace has been unarmed and therefor unable to keep thier own government in check since the end of the Sengoku period, and a good deal before that, actually.

Whew. Was that a little better than quoting a movie? Cause I honestly don't think anyone's going to know about half of what I wrote.

Okay..I don't see any reason why you'd need "Assault weaponry".
The term itself, assault, deals with attacking, or rather ASSAULTING people or things.
You don't need that.
It isn't going to help you.


Saying we need it because of the need to rebel is idiocy. Do you really think people carrying about simple o' weaponry will stand a chance against an army with heavy weapons, tanks and of course choppers? This isn't some movie, nor is it the past.

Saying this isn't the past is a very weak arguement, the past is the only thing we have to judge to future by. Any type of science is just observations of past experiences.

Now let's examine both parts of your post. The first paragraph begins to suggest that there's no need for assault weaponry, suggesting that it's too much. The second says that simple ol weaponry wont help in a rebellion, which suggests that it's too little. I'm probably misinterperting this, I don't think anyone could possibly contridict themselves so quickly, so I wont dwell on it.

Instead, having already established that the past is the only thing we have to judge the future by, I will look back to a more recent past, vietnam. We had choppers, we had tanks, we had better technology, more men, more organization and better intelligence, and we were still never able to occupy the land. You think the middle east is a distaster? At least we have a sense of securing and advancing, at least we have some sort of something (very descriptive, I know) resembling an objective. But I digress. The Vietnamese proved to use that smaller forces can compete with larger ones through superior guerilla tactics in corrolation with greater knowledge of the land.

Nevermind that if there were any significant rebellion in the US, that's part of the work force no longer contributing to the national taxes, which means less funding for the miltary as well. Many things to consider, but the main point is that you shouldn't underestimate your enemy. Remember that this nation, too, was formed by a rebellion.

Vietnam was unable to be defeated due to the fact that they were capable of using the terrain unbelievably well. On top of that, Americans were not prepared for combat in that type of situation, nor were they prepared for the morale loss that would occur.
And of course there was the "Make love not war" gathering throng back in America, that undermined the very government itself in it's actions, forcing politicians to think about going against the war in order to gain votes.
I also believe that at one point America was kicking butt in Vietnam...

Now what will happen if there is a rebellion in America?
Well, let's say that we have "Assault weapons". Hell, we'll expand assault weapons to things like assault rifles(Which would make sense..yeah?).
Now, let's be nice and even limit it to a place like the rural area of my hometown, making it so the entire town is against the country. We'll move in an equal number of soldiers, including an equal number of firepower.

Who will win? The soldiers. They have the training, they have the supplies, they have the assistance from outside the area such as information. Soldiers are trained, ordinary people are not. So what will happen if everyone in my hometown has an Assault Rifle? Well...some will shoot themselves, others will shoot friends and a few lucky buggers will actually do good until they get slaughtered by the soldiers.

Now let's make it realistic, in that the soldiers would come with far better equipment and reinforcements. Do you really think the ordinary o' people have a chance? No, they don't.