Can you tell me which one of these guns was illegal under the 1994 AWB?

You're an obvious mouthpiece for the gun nut extremist NRA. Reasonable people don't believe that any nut should be able to own a gun like the extremist nuts at the NRA.

I understand where you're coming from on this one, Gore's the One - but I think we'd get a much more fruitful discussion out of discussing the topic rather than instulting each other.

For the sake of the question I'd guess the bottom one. I'm assuming - FellowDemocrat - that you're point is that the Gun ban made no significant difference in what guns people can own? Out of curiosity though, why in the world would anyone want to own this thing? What would someone use it for? :?:

Let's note that the violent crimerate went significantly down after the assault weapons ban...

AFAIK, the M4 was banned because it can be fired in fully auto. Could be wrong, but I think that's right.

All of the guns i posted above were legal... perfectly legal.

Well, they shouldn't be, what's the purpose????? I wouldn't want to be around someone who owned a gun like that.

Below, is a picture showing an illegal rifle and a legal rifle. The only differences are the threaded barrel, the magazine capacity, the collapsing stock, and the bayonet lug. This does not change how powerful the weapon was nor does it mention anything about the weapon being fully automatic.


For the record, i am not a "mouthpiece for the gun nut NRA extremists." I am not a member of the NRA and actually disagree with some things they say. I am just a responsible law abiding citizen that likes guns.

There are many purposes to owning guns like these. These include:

Competition
Hunting
Target practice
Protection
Collecting
Because they're fun to shoot
etc

PROTECTION??????? A regular gun can be kept for protection. Assault weapons are for criminals. Most of the people who own them are thugs. Remember the DC snipers from a couple years ago????

You have got to be kidding me! Who needs those type of guns for hunting, protection, or any of the things you listed?

I am sorry, but I am pro-gun control. A member of my family was murdered a few years back by a person who illegally had a gun in their posession. Guns serve no purpose; none whatsoever.

Yes, protection. If you are a robber, and walk up to a house with a sign that says "Gun owners, enter with an intention to do harm and you will be shot," are you going to break into that one or the one right next to it without a sign? The answe is obvious. Not everyone lives in the perfect little neigborhoods you know.

Actually, most people that own AR-15's are law abiding citizens.

Answer me this, what makes these "Assaut weapons" so bad? Is it because of the strengh? No, because they aren't all that powerful. Or is it because certain politicians say they're bad? What exactly makes these "Assault weapons" so bad?

In addition, a "Regular gun" aka the Glock 9mm was one of the most restricted guns during the 90's... with the Brady bill.

You can easily take guns like AR's, AK's, etc hunting. Their caliber isn't all that big... and you can even get AR's in 9mm. For defense, read my prior post. For competition? Guns are big time competition items.

I'm sorry about your family member. See, Project Exile (Which i have been speaking quite often about) is a very good gun control measure. This should be implimented all over the country.

I'm sorry, but the fact is, this issue robbed us of a ton of votes in both the 2000 election and 2004.

No, that wasn't the reason why it was banned.

Like i previously stated, in order to get a fully auto gun, you have to sign a form called a "Form 4." Upon signing this, everyone and their moms get to view your history. Not to mention, that these guns are way more expensive.

It doesn't matter if people can view your history. You can be a perfectly clean guy but have a dark side that nobody knows about. Look at Scot Peterson, look at the terrorists that hijacked the planes on 9/11. Background checks may prevent some crimes, but by no means all.

Yes, it does matter because if you have anything bad at all on your history, that is a no go. In addition, whoever is doing the looking has access to anything they want about you, anything.

By the way, no one has answered my question involving why these "Assault weapons" are so bad? How exactly did the AWB stop crime? How did things like a boyonet lug (Not the actual boyonet), collapsable stock, limited amount of bullets in a mag, and threaded barrel stop crime? I don't see the logic here. The AWB only mentioned the 4 things above... not the actual strength of the weapon or about it being fully-automatic. A .44 magnum is hands down more powerful than an AR-15 and yet it wasn't banned. You ever see the movie "Dirty Harry?" let me quote Clint Eastwood in that movie:

"This is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful gun in the world. It will take a mans head clean off. let me ask you one thing, do you feel lucky? Well do ya punk!"

Good movie by the way.

Free democrat, I think you're a right wing republican troll. This is a forum for Al Gore supporters. It's clear you don't support Al Gore.

Seems like you have fallen into the "I believe what (insert groupname here) says, they have no reason to lie to me".

These weapon are not for criminals, infact most crimes are committed with either a shotgun or a handgun.

Most of the people who own them are thugs?? Well as a US Marine defending YOUR Rights, I take offence to that comment. I protect your freedom, yet you want to restrict mine. There is an old say about the 3 boxes that protect freedom, the soapbox, the ballot box, and the ammo box. Your right to say what you want is protected by my right to keep and bear arms. I own a semi-automatic AK-47 lookalike or clone. I use this rifle for hunting, target shooting, and if nessessary I would use it for home defense. Are you going to stand guard at my house 24 hours a day?? Didnt think you would, yet you would obviously like to see me left defenseless.

I am not nor have I ever been in the NRA, I am just a hard working citizen who believes that The Right to keep and Bear Arms is just as important as the Right to freedom of speech

You like FD are twisting my words and putting words in my mouth which I resent and don't appreciate. I never said anything about the military. I KNOW they have weapons and are trained properly to use them, ordinary citizens are not and I don't think they have any business owning high powered assault weapons.

So, watch the accusations and insults. :)

Some things to consider:

The number of AR-15 type rifles, civilian AK-47 lookalikes, and other small-caliber nontraditional looking rifles in civilian hands was dramatically INCREASED by the AWB. More AR-15 type rifles were sold in 1994 and following than in the previous three decades combined, and the same would be true of civilian AK lookalikes. So the crime decrease coincided with a huge upswing in the ownership of AR's and AK's by the law-abiding, which merely demonstrates that AR's and AK's weren't a significant part of the crime picture to start with. (The #1 crime gun in the U.S. has long been the .38/.357 revolver, and rifles of ANY sort are rarely used in crimes.)

Contrary to popular belief, the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban any guns; rather, it:

(1) raised the price on full-capacity replacement magazines for full- and intermediate-sized civilian handguns, by restricting new manufacture to police and law enforcement only (pre-'94 magazines exempt);

(2) specified that civilian firearms could not be marketed under any of 19 military-sounding names (pre-'94 firearms exempt);

(3) mandated that AR-15 type rifles manufactured after 1994 had to have fake flash suppressors instead of real ones and could not have adjustable stocks (pre-'94 firearms exempt);

(4) mandated that civilian AK-47 lookalikes manufactured/imported after 1994 had to have either pin-on muzzle brakes or smooth muzzles instead of screw-on brakes (pre-'94 firearms exempt).

I bought my own civilian "AK" lookalike, a Romanian SAR-1, in 2003 (yes, during the ban); it's a 2002 model. As you can see, it has a smooth muzzle as the AWB required, and is NOT an "assault weapon" per the 1994 Federal definition.

This should go without saying, but my "AK" is not a REAL AK-47, it just looks like one. Real AK's, and all other automatic weapons, are very tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act, which has been in effect since 1934.

The AWB didn't ban any actual M4's; those are strictly controlled by the Title 2 provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (as are all other automatic weapons), and were not affected in any way by the AWB since they were already restricted by the NFA.

Civilian M4 lookalikes, which look like real M4's but function like ordinary civilian rifles, were not restricted per se by the AWB. The AWB did specify that a civilian rifle with a protruding handgrip could not have a flash suppressor or adjustable stock, so civilian "M4geries" made during the period 1994-2004 would have had muzzle brakes and nonadjustable stocks instead, but they were still quite popular. Post 2004, a lot of M4gery owners are retrofitting them with adjustable stocks and such, I'm sure.

The infantry rifles used by the military are not "assault weapons"; they are actual automatic weapons, which are very tightly controlled by Federal law.

"Assault weapons" as covered by the AWB are not used by any military in the world, that I know of. The AWB did not have anything to do with M16's, military AK-47's, or Uzi submachineguns, contrary to popular belief; those have always been restricted under the Title 2 provisions of the National Firearms Act. All guns covered by the AWB were ordinary Title 1 (civilian) firearms, not military firearms.

BTW, "assault weapons" are not "high powered." Don't take my word for it, check out the energy figures for yourself:

.Civilian Uzi lookalike (9x19mm)...................450 ft-lb
.AR-15...........................................1,275 ft-lb
.Civilian AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm)............1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer hunting rifle........................2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)............4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE).............7,000 ft-lb

You can verify most of these energy figures using the ballistics page at the Remington ammunition company. For perspective's sake, the .30-06 is the most popular deer-hunting caliber in the United States.

We are talking about some of the least powerful of all centerfire rifles here. (Which is one reason why they are popular with us nonhunters, because the less powerful calibers are more pleasant to shoot.)

You gun nuts need to read the entire 2nd amendment which says a well regulated militia and not every off balanced nut. Furthermore, my father spent 18 years in the Air Force defendng our country and he was very strongly opposed to any nut being allowed to own a gun. Furthermore, freedom means counting all of the votes. Where wereyou when the Bush election stealers illegally blocked the counting of the uncounted votes in Florida? Every previous generation of americans fought and died for what Bush stole in 2000. That obviously doesn't mean anything to you. Our country wuld be in the mess it's in now if all of the votes in Florida had been counted. Your Viet Nam dodging Bush's guns only policy in Iraq is an additional disaster that our country will never recover from. When are you going to understand that guns are the problem not the solution?

Ummm....the party platform recognizes the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right of individual American citizens to own firearms.

The 2nd Amendment itself says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note that the right is stated as belonging to the "people," not the militia. But even if you somehow limit the right to the "militia," are you aware that the U.S. Code defines the "militia" as consisting of every law-abiding male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45? And that modern jurisprudence would likely include female citizens as well?

More than one third of registered Democrats are gun owners. Here in North Carolina, the percentage of Dems who own guns is likely in excess of 50%. EIGHTY PERCENT of union members in the state of Tennessee are gun owners. And the vast majority of us are nonhunters. Simply on the basis of that demographic information alone, don't you think that an issue that EIGHTY MILLION people of voting age consider important deserves at least to be discussed in a rational manner, instead of dismissing us as "extremists" or freepers in disguise?

I challenge you to head over to Democratic Underground and read the thread Democrats and the Gun Issue: Now What?. Not just the initial post, but all the responses.

Why is it so hard for some people to grasp that law-abiding gun ownership is NOT a right-wing issue? :?:

Your response is the typical gun nut response that twists the reference about the well regulated militia in the 2nd amendment. During the early years of our country gun ownership was much rarer because guns were expensive and most people couldn't afford them. For the record, most reasonable gun owners today support senisble gun legislation. You're obviously part of the NRA nut wing bunch. Too bad you don't feel so strongly about Bush ending democracy in America when he took away our right to vote in 2000.

Well is seems like the Republicans are more interested in protecting their gun rights than everybody's voting rights. :bad:

Count their guns, but don't count the votes.

Well - I have to admit you guys know alot more of the facts about this than I do. :/ I'm going to have to do some research I guess before making a helpful respons. However, one thing that gets me, is when you guys say that these guns aren't that powerful - as if that makes them safer. Maybe in a target practice or hunting situation that'd make a difference, but something I'm concerned about, and something I believe many people here share a concern about is what kind of damage and harm rapid fire weapons can cause in the wrong hands - such as an actual nut, or a curious kid, or even a terrorist.

Rapid fire definitely should be banned. We can't afford another Columbine.

I think there should be a lot of restrictions on hunting too. Hunting deer when they become overpopulated is one thing, but I'm sickened by people who hunt bears and big cats. Why should their rights be subhuman? They have the same feelings humans do. They feel pain the way humans do. Just sick...

I totally agree.

Real law abiding gun owners don't have a problem with sensible gun laws like backround checks and registration. Fellow democrat, all you're doing is recycling the extremism of the lunatic NRA who believes any nut should be able to own a gun no matter what. That's way outside the parameters for law abiding gun owners. Are you also opposed to drivers licenses and car registrations?

All civilian (Title 1) self-loading firearms fire at the same rate, i.e. they fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. There is zero difference in rate of fire between a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle (small-game hunting rifle), a Bushmaster AR-15, my civilian AK-47 lookalike, or the pistol in your local police officer's holster. All fire at the same rate.

Rate of fire was not a criterion in the AWB; appearance was (how the stock is shaped, what the muzzle looks like, etc.).

Automatic weapons such as AK-47's (real ones) and M16's and Uzi's and whatnot, which can spray bullets as long as the trigger is held down, are controlled by the National Firearms Act and were not subject to the AWB.

Most of the murders at Columbine were carried out using two 12-gauge hunting shotguns, illegally sawed off. One was a pump-action and one was a 2-shot side-by-side. The other two guns were a 9mm pistol and a 9mm carbine, neither of which was an "assault weapon" under the AWB.

Like most gun owners, my wife and I don't hunt. I don't have anything against hunting as long as it's done humanely, particularly hunting for food, but I don't think it's something I'd necessarily enjoy, for some of the reasons you mention. Our family doesn't own any hunting firearms per se.

Real law-abiding gun owners don't have a problem with sensible gun laws like background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, firearms over .50 caliber, and so on. In other words, the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the NCIS background check system, etc. etc. are supported by gun owners and the NRA. What we don't support is banning civilian guns based on how the stock is shaped, or based on wild claims by the anti-gun lobby that many people who aren't familiar with guns or gun law uncritically swallow.

Registration might make sense if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't ruled that registration laws can be applied only to the law-abiding (not to criminals), and if there weren't such a powerful and well-funded lobby trying to ban half the guns we own.

As far as driver's licenses go, guns are already more tightly restricted than cars. You don't have to have a license to buy a car, you just have to have a license to drive the car on public roads, just like you have to have a license to carry a gun on your person in public (except for Alaska and Vermont). Background checks aren't required for car purchase either, and the government doesn't track car purchases as closely as they track gun purchases.

Is it so hard to believe that a thinking person can study the issue in great depth and come to a different conclusion than you without being a "lunatic"? :blink:

I'm NOT a Republican.

As I mentioned above, more than one third of registered Democrats nationally, and certainly more than half in my state (NC), are gun owners, as are at least that many independent swing voters. Owning a gun does not make someone a Republican...

Actually, they were Tek 9s.

This debate is useless. I respect your opinion FD, but I'm not going to budge, and your are not going to either (in my belief). I'll agree to disagree.

No, they weren't. The guns were:

1 12-gauge (.729 caliber) Savage pump-action hunting shotgun, sawed off to 23 inches overall
1 Stevens 12-gauge (.729 caliber) side-by-side hunting shotgun, sawed off to 26 inches overall
1 Hi-Point Model 995 9mm carbine
1 Intratec DC-9 9mm pistol (apparently not a TEC-9, contrary to some media reports)

Most of the killings were carried out with the shotguns, as I recall. The DC-9 (NOT an "assault weapon per the Federal definition) 9mm pistol got most of the media attention due to its nontraditional appearance, and was the gun that one of the killers used to kill himself, but was apparently not a major factor in the murders.

FWIW, a .729 caliber shotgun can discharge EIGHT 9mm projectiles with a single pull of the trigger (if loaded with 000 buckshot), which is one reason shotguns are a lot more lethal than 9mm pistols.

I prefer a .357 caliber two shot Derringer pistol with impact (dum-dum) bullets myself...Very small and easy to conceal, but I can blow the back of your head off within 50 feet...(that is it drills a nice hole in the front of your head while it blows out the back...Power comes in small packages...My Uncle was a PI(Private Investigator) and THAT was all he carried...he always said "if you can't take them out with two shots then you deserve to die"... He was a "mean" one...I think it was because of that 18 months he spent in a Nazi POW camp...(Where by the way he was lucky to just get pistol whipped with a Luger that put a hole in his head)... <_<

Or if I want to cause "real" damage and burn you to bits then a "molotov cocktail" gasoline ballon and a "match" work just fine... :dripple:

But if I were to be a sneaky "mechanic" then I would just drop some "battery acid" on one of your metal brake lines and let mother nature take her course the next time you try to stop your car going 65 mph... :ph43r:

The "morbid" point I am trying tomake here is if I really WANTED to "kill" you then there's a thousand and one ways to do it without the need for an assault weapon...As a matter of fact if I saw somebody walking into a store with and AK or an Uzi then I would call that criminal and "absolute" fool...maybe he should have worn Clown make up and shown up in a "tiny" car... :blink:

Am I against "gun control"?...Not really, but when BU$H takes 100,000 Police that Bill Clinton put ON the streets...OFF of the streets then you can expect not just "violent" but all crime to increase...It wasn't just the Brady Bill alone that reduced crime...but it was ALSO an INCREASED presence of the LAW that squelched the "criminal element" in the 90's... ;)

Put more simply...Here I am being "stupidly" obvious with an AK47...But if I am instantly surrounded by 5 POLICE OFFICERS with M16's then WHO is going to win? :?:

As Sting put it in song....Murder By Numbers...1,2,3... :huh: