Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: That Pesky Assault Rifle Ban - Fact &/or Fiction

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Vermont, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    That was rather nice to watch.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    VtCO wrote:
    That was rather nice to watch.
    It's old news but still good for those who might not exactly know or remember what that Ban was really all about.



  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Well first off, there was no Assault Weapon (or rifle) ban in 1994. Never happened. Never existed. And never affected one single assault weapon (or rifle). This was one of the biggest and most outrageous lies perpetrated on the American public in my lifetime. But since there are not that many people who know anything about the topic, it is easy to tell a lie and have it accepted as the truth.. EVEN AMONG GUN PEOPLE!!

    You might think that gun people would know better and therefore not fall into the trap of the "Assault Weapon Ban". But a hell of a lot don't know the difference or what they're talking about. Want proof? How many times have you heard a "gun person" use the term assault weapon (or rifle) when speaking about a semi-auto rifle? That answers the question right there. In the entire world and in the recent history of assault weapons, not one of them has had a semi-auto action. ALL, let me repeat that.. ALL have been fully automatic, selectable firearms.

    The definition of an assault weapon (rifle) is a shoulder arm of "light to medium caliber" which is capable of selective rates of fire. In other words, the user can switch from semi-auto to full auto at will.

    It galls me to no end to hear gun people refer to semi-auto rifles that look like their full-auto versions, as assault weapons (or rifles). We should know better and we should use the proper and correct terminology.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Actually, what you are describing is what is known as an assault RIFLE, not an assault weapon. That's the specific reason that the gun grabbers chose to use the term: "assault weapon", instead of "assault rifle". There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" in actual firearms terminology. The supporters of that legislation chose to use it for the connotation it produces, given that it sounds and looks like "assault rifle". The choice of terminology was NOT a mistake. It was absolutely deliberate, meant to give credibility to the notion that the weapon affected by the ban were in fact "evil".

    It is interesting to note that we as gun rights activists use some of the same tactics, and sometimes it backfires. Here is an example:

    We often talk about how this or that politician is going to "take away your guns". However, legislation that actually calls for firearms confiscation never gets anywhere. Only the most rabid gun grabbers even consider it (such as legislators who represent places like San Francisco, Chicago, or D.C), because in most areas, support for such legislation is political suicide. It has backfired, in that people like Biden can say things like, "Obama won't take away my Beretta!" and be completely truthful. He's not going to "take away" any weapons, but it's a good bet he will try to make it so that you can't buy any new weapons, or that it will be much more difficult to get ammo, or that you may have to register your weapons.

    Don't get me wrong, obviously their ultimate goal is in fact to confiscate all of our weapons, but they will need to get through several other anti-gun checkpoints before they can consider that. However, I believe that it will never be possible to actually confiscate weapons from Americans without a military action. Too many people just won't comply.

    Back to the original subject: It's all a war of words. The average American doesn't pay attention to what's happening in America. All of their knowledge about critical issues comes from 30 second sound bites, usualy from network news. So, when they hear "assault weapons", and are shown a picture of an AR-15, then their mind from then on associates any military-looking weapon with a machine gun that must be taken off the streets.

    The only way to win this war is to educate, and as we have seen, the typical American can only be educated in 30 second sound bites. For every false propaganda campaign that the gun grabbers put out there, we have to answer it with our own propaganda campaign which consists of lessons that are just as brief as the lies. Otherwise, the country will tune it out.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    Actually, what you are describing is what is known as an assault RIFLE, not an assault weapon. That's the specific reason that the gun grabbers chose to use the term: "assault weapon", instead of "assault rifle". There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" in actual firearms terminology. The supporters of that legislation chose to use it for the connotation it produces, given that it sounds and looks like "assault rifle". The choice of terminology was NOT a mistake. It was absolutely deliberate, meant to give credibility to the notion that the weapon affected by the ban were in fact "evil".

    It is interesting to note that we as gun rights activists use some of the same tactics, and sometimes it backfires. Here is an example:

    We often talk about how this or that politician is going to "take away your guns". However, legislation that actually calls for firearms confiscation never gets anywhere. Only the most rabid gun grabbers even consider it (such as legislators who represent places like San Francisco, Chicago, or D.C), because in most areas, support for such legislation is political suicide. It has backfired, in that people like Biden can say things like, "Obama won't take away my Beretta!" and be completely truthful. He's not going to "take away" any weapons, but it's a good bet he will try to make it so that you can't buy any new weapons, or that it will be much more difficult to get ammo, or that you may have to register your weapons.

    Don't get me wrong, obviously their ultimate goal is in fact to confiscate all of our weapons, but they will need to get through several other anti-gun checkpoints before they can consider that. However, I believe that it will never be possible to actually confiscate weapons from Americans without a military action. Too many people just won't comply.

    Back to the original subject: It's all a war of words. The average American doesn't pay attention to what's happening in America. All of their knowledge about critical issues comes from 30 second sound bites, usualy from network news. So, when they hear "assault weapons", and are shown a picture of an AR-15, then their mind from then on associates any military-looking weapon with a machine gun that must be taken off the streets.

    The only way to win this war is to educate, and as we have seen, the typical American can only be educated in 30 second sound bites. For every false propaganda campaign that the gun grabbers put out there, we have to answer it with our own propaganda campaign which consists of lessons that are just as brief as the lies. Otherwise, the country will tune it out.
    Yes, I am very much aware of that (the bolded part). The reason I used the word "weapon" is because they, and so many others, did and to. This all came about after the Stockton, CA school yard shooting in 1989. Josh Sugarman came up with the idea to use a very visceral term in order to force the general public to demand certain and special legal limits on these types of firearms. And it worked. President Bush (of the the reasons I never liked this guy) banned the importation of a class of rifles which "seemed" to fit this mold. And the rest is history. Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it becomes the truth.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, ,
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    I have been getting into guns over that past couple of years and was too young to understand what the ban was all about back when it was created. After watching the video, let me know if I am understanding that correctly. First I assume the AR-15 was on the list that couldn't be made or imported.

    I could go and buy a used or produced prior to the ban AR-15 with a pistol grip, 10 round mag, A2 fixed stock, and a 16"/20"/24" bull barrel. The pistol grip would be my 1 out of 5 options. The stock is fixed, no bayonet mount, nor grenade launcher on the bull, and because it was >=16" it didn't need a flash suppressor to make the barrel long enough.

    I think I remember hearing that "illegal" guns were grandfathered in. Could one of these illegal guns or magazines have been sold or traded privately without a paper trail like you can now? (Indiana law required no paperwork)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •