Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Ten years after it was born out of the carnage of three California mass shootings, the federal assault weapons ban is fading out of existence Monday.

While manufacturers look for a boom in business as people buy up previously banned weapons like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s, police chiefs warn of an upsurge in crime.

The law's chief sponsor, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, is urging retailers not to sell the disputed weapons, while hoping for a change in the nation's political climate.

Feinstein was horrified by the 1984 shooting rampage at a McDonald's in San Diego County that killed 21 people and the massacre of five people five years later at a Stockton elementary school yard.

But it was the shooting at a law firm in San Francisco in 1993, in which eight were killed and six wounded, that persuaded her to push for the assault weapons ban.

"It was the ultimate shock," Feinstein said in an interview. "That building is one of the great economic citadels in the city, and you see this prestigious law firm. And then -- boom. Someone comes in, aggrieved, and goes right through the place."

Just over a year after the San Francisco shootings, President Bill Clinton signed Feinstein's bill into law. It banned the sale of 19 specific semiautomatic weapons and ammunition clips of 10 rounds or more.

Former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan wrote to all members of the House to encourage them to pass the ban at the time.

But it was set to expire exactly 10 years later if it weren't renewed in Congress, and President George W. Bush never pushed Congressional leaders to move the renewal legislation.

Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories. And because existing weapons and large ammo clips were protected by a "grandfather" provision, many pre-ban guns remained in use.

"The bill's not perfect; we could have written a better bill," Feinstein says now. "I just didn't know how craven the gun manufacturers would be."

Studies done by pro- and antigun groups as well as the Justice Department show conflicting results on whether the ban helped reduce crime.

California and other more urban states, including Massachusetts and New York, have passed their own laws curbing the use of assault weapons. Some of those are more stringent than the federal ban.

Source


Is this why there are threads by people asking what kind of gun to get?

 

[ErasureAcer]

How bout we show some civil disobedience and kill all the people for the end of the assault weapons ban with assault weapons?

That'll teach em a lesson.

 

[Triumph]

Fuckin Sweet. I can afford a semi-automatic weapon or two now. I think I'll get an uzi and an ak-47. Then I'll start the Midtown Atlanta Militia.

 

[DCharlie]

Bush goes on about how precious life is when it comes to abortion, i wonder if he'll be quite as pro-active if the deaths from automatics go up (if they do - you never know!)

 

[MetatronM]

I just see no logical reason to allow that kind of stuff to be sold. There is no justification for it whatsoever, and there is no rational reason for wanting more weapons designed to do nothing but KILL PEOPLE IN COMBAT SITUATIONS introduced into everyday society. You don't fucking hunt with AK-47s and Uzis. They serve no purpose whatsoever but to kill people.

I'm not saying we need the specific law that was in place, and given the failings of the law's enforcability, I don't know how well it fulfilled its job, but we need some kind of ban of some kind. There is just no logical reason not to.

This shouldn't even be a liberal/conservative thing. This should be a common sense "why make it easier for other people to kill me?" kind of thing.

 

[Matlock]

The "ban" was mostly symbolic.

 

[B'z-chan]

Better yet why not just get rid of guns in general? The only people that need them are law enforcement and military. The average person does not need a weapon yet we have more guns in this country than any other.

Though the thought of having any one of these weapons does make me wonder. Cause i do remember back in the day going out to the woods with a Modified Ak-47 and some small calibur machine gun and having a little fun. But i was young.... ah how i long for cold steel in my hand.

 

[cvxfreak]

According to the NRA, the burden lies on those to show why rights should be limited, rather than rights being expressed. So, they see the necessity factor as an "illegitimate" question and factor. Bush obviously stayed clear of this bill to get the NRA endorsement in a few weeks. He said he'd support it in 2000, but the NRA is too important to him in this close election.

That said, I still think the NRA are a bunch of stupid moronic assholes for calling the necessity factor illegitimate, and in the perfect world they'd be "shot down" but politics rule here. =/

 

[Triumph]

Better yet why not just get rid of guns in general? The only people that need them are law enforcement and military. The average person does not need a weapon yet we have more guns in this country than any other.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The reason that the common populace must have access to weapons is to keep the Govt. in line. The 2nd Amendment reads: "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." So when Dubya is announced Supreme Dictator for Life and actually poops on the Constitution(instead of the figurative craps he's been taking on it for the past 3 or so years), we can assemble a militia necessary to the security of a free State. I don't know about you, but four more years of these yahoos is about the biggest threat to an actual free State that I can imagine.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

i don't know about you, but when i can't protect my home from terrorists with just a shotgun, i need myself an m 16 so they don't take my tv.

 

[Triumph]

i don't know about you, but when i can't protect my home from terrorists with just a shotgun, i need myself an m 16 so they don't take my tv.

Uh, I'm more worried about the Thought Police- er, I mean Department of Homeland Security. Islamic Terrorists don't hate our freedom, they hate our ties to the Royal Saudi Family, all the military bases we have in Saudi Arabia and our unilateral support for Israel. Meanwhile, if you look at what the Dept. of Homeland Security actually DOES, I find it far easier to believe that our current Administration hates our freedom.

 

[captainbiotch]

When people are too cowardly to protect themselves is when criminals and tyrants take advantage of them. When Hilter came to power the nazi government completely banned the private ownership of weapons. Same thing in communist China, the Soviet Union, probably every tyrannical regime known to man. What happened in those countries? Millions upon millions of citizens unable to defend themselves were slaughtered. If you think our US government isn't capable of taking advantage of an unarmed society then you haven't studied enough history. Our society is well on its way to a socialist/big brother utopia.

The best way to defend yourself is by being proficient with weapons designed to kill, hoping you never have to use it. I'm quite pleased this ban has ended.

 

[EviLore]

Folks, this really doesn't change much at all. You could still buy and sell rifles that were banned under the law as long as they were manufactured before sept 13 1994. Frequently the transition from pre-ban to post-ban specifications would mean little. A rifle made after the date would be considered a Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (and therefore controlled) if it had two or more of these qualifications:


-a folding or telescoping stock
-a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
-a bayonet mount
-a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
-a grenade launcher


This was a legal post-ban weapon:

Edit (since this came up in another discussion): Bear in mind that the lifting of the ban does *not* affect the controlled status of fully automatic weapons.

 

[Phoenix]

Our society is well on its way to a socialist/big brother utopia.

Headed for a socialist Utopia? One would hope...

 

[Matlock]

EviLore: You do realize that nobody's going to pay attention to that, don't you?

 

[Phoenix]

Folks, this really doesn't change much at all. You could still buy and sell rifles that were banned under the law as long as they were manufactured before sept 13 1994. Frequently the transition from pre-ban to post-ban specifications would mean little. A rifle made after the date would be considered a Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (and therefore controlled) if it had two or more of these qualifications:


-a folding or telescoping stock
-a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
-a bayonet mount
-a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
-a grenade launcher


This is a legal post-ban weapon:

Sweet, so now I can get me an M60 and mount it on my house! That'll teach the home owners association a thing or two

 

[Matlock]

Bastardly Phoenix, you just had to prove me wrong.

 

[maharg]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The reason that the common populace must have access to weapons is to keep the Govt. in line. The 2nd Amendment reads: "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." So when Dubya is announced Supreme Dictator for Life and actually poops on the Constitution(instead of the figurative craps he's been taking on it for the past 3 or so years), we can assemble a militia necessary to the security of a free State. I don't know about you, but four more years of these yahoos is about the biggest threat to an actual free State that I can imagine.

The big problem with this line of argument is that it's difficult to say that the people of the united states are even close to sufficiently armed to fight off the military of the government. Will your semiautomatic assault rifle effectively protect you from an apache with missiles that can hit you from farther away than you can see? Or perhaps a tank for which you need small missiles to even crack the armor?

Not to say that the idea is not, on some level, sound. A well armed populace could effectively keep a relatively equally armed government in check, and this was largely the situation in 1790 or so. All that set a militia apart from a standing army then was training. The difference between a hunting gun and a military rifle was much less than that between a submachine gun and an attack helicopter, and a canon much more difficult to defend than a tank.

Besides, I think the CIA, the NSA, and Homeland Security probably have better ways of fucking your life over than rolling over your house with a tank. What Americans should be fighting for, imo, is more direct oversight of their increasingly paranoid and secretive government agencies. Not the right to own a peashooter.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Uh, I'm more worried about the Thought Police- er, I mean Department of Homeland Security. Islamic Terrorists don't hate our freedom, they hate our ties to the Royal Saudi Family, all the military bases we have in Saudi Arabia and our unilateral support for Israel. Meanwhile, if you look at what the Dept. of Homeland Security actually DOES, I find it far easier to believe that our current Administration hates our freedom.

You ever think that you may take some things too seriously?

 

[Mandark]

Iraqi citizens had tons of their own personal guns back in the 1990's. It didn't keep Saddam from running things, or help the Shiite uprising. I don't think any amount of assault rifles would help the civilian populace duke it out with the US military, and I really don't want to see private proliferation of the kinds of weapons that would.

"I think the political spectrum's not so much a line, as a circle, and the far left and far right are actually standing back-to-back, but they don't know it." Someone else on another message board. The original quote's lost to the memory hole.

 

[KingV]

This is assuming that the military would willingly go to war with the civilian populace, which is highly dubious. We're not exactly the Red Army here, a huge part of the American military is that we're soldier/civilians, not just soldiers.

 

[DarienA]

As someone said on the radio this AM... Happy Uzi Day!

 

[Forsete]

I feel sorry for the United States Police Force..

 

[Willco]

I can't tell you how relieved I am to finally buy an assault weapon with a grenade launcher.

... for hunting deer, of course. Deer with armor and jet packs. They're fast, but they can't escape grenades!

 

[commish]

I have my 15 shot Glock clips on the way already!

Thanks for trying to post some sense in the matter, EvilLore. So many idiots are like "OMFG let me go buy my now legal automatic AK"

 

[Screaming_Gremlin]

Folks, this really doesn't change much at all. You could still buy and sell rifles that were banned under the law as long as they were manufactured before sept 13 1994. Frequently the transition from pre-ban to post-ban specifications would mean little. A rifle made after the date would be considered a Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (and therefore controlled) if it had two or more of these qualifications:


-a folding or telescoping stock
-a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
-a bayonet mount
-a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
-a grenade launcher


This was a legal post-ban weapon:

Edit (since this came up in another discussion): Bear in mind that the lifting of the ban does *not* affect the controlled status of fully automatic weapons.

Thank you for bringing some reason into this thread.

 

[SyNapSe]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The reason that the common populace must have access to weapons is to keep the Govt. in line. The 2nd Amendment reads: "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." So when Dubya is announced Supreme Dictator for Life and actually poops on the Constitution(instead of the figurative craps he's been taking on it for the past 3 or so years), we can assemble a militia necessary to the security of a free State.

This was the original reason, yes. As a poster already pointed out.. this proposition just isnt realistic anymore. A militia would just get slaughtered trying to overthrow our government.

I really cant think of any good reasons to allow people to have these weapons. The ban should be recreated, and be more effective.

 

[commish]

This was the original reason, yes. As a poster already pointed out.. this proposition just isnt realistic anymore. A militia would just get slaughtered trying to overthrow our government.

I really cant think of any good reasons to allow people to have these weapons. The ban should be recreated, and be more effective.

First question, what weapons, and second question, what would that solve?

 

[Triumph]

You ever think that you may take some things too seriously?

Nope. I think that the rest of the country doesn't take things seriously enough, for the most part.

 

[Mustang]

If people really want the damn things, they can get them, law or not.

 

[xsarien]

If people really want the damn things, they can get them, law or not.

That goes for pretty much anything. But at least the ban kept some of them out of circulation. There's no - no - reason that any normal citizen would need weapons like this. Self defense? Bullshit. Any gun can get your point across just fine, this shit is just excessive.

 

[commish]

That goes for pretty much anything. But at least the ban kept some of them out of circulation. There's no - no - reason that any normal citizen would need weapons like this. Self defense? Bullshit. Any gun can get your point across just fine, this shit is just excessive.

Which guns are you talking about? Everyone keeps saying "weapons like this" but I don't know which ones they are talking about.

 

[Baron Aloha]

That goes for pretty much anything. But at least the ban kept some of them out of circulation. There's no - no - reason that any normal citizen would need weapons like this. Self defense? Bullshit. Any gun can get your point across just fine, this shit is just excessive.

I personally was for the ban and I agree with you that it seems excessive but a friend of mine raised a really good point and now I could probably go either way on the issue. His point was that while it may excessive right now you never know what the future might hold. If at some point a terrorist or someone crazy like that managed to set off a nuke or a bio-weapon and the food supply was placed in danger you may very well need something excessive like an AK-47 to defend yourself. Some people would do anything to feed their families if they were placed in a situation where there was little-to-no food. I myself would never harm another human being unless they were trying to harm me first no matter what the circumstances but I know that some of my neighbors wouldn't even bat an eye.

Granted, the chances of something happening to the food supply seem pretty slim, but before 9-11 people would have said the same thing about 4 planes being hijacked and used as flying bombs. Nowadays you just never know.

 

[xsarien]

Granted, the chances of something happening to the food supply seem pretty slim, but before 9-11 people would have said the same thing about 4 planes being hijacked and used as flying bombs. Nowadays you just never know.

I'm going to build a Mad Max car, and use that reasoning when anybody asks. Awesome, thanks.

 

[LuckyBrand]

1 - having these weapons available certainly does keep the government in check.. trust me, if our own military had to do things in our own country by a corrupt goverment, they'd not want to do it, and they'd not want to do it even more if they knew the people had machine guns out there.

2 - someone might want to protect themselves with an m16 instead of a shotgun or a handgun, whats wrong with that? i am talking about someone with a home..

3 - there have been many riots and bad situations in our country during its timeframe, but nothing horrible yet, but many countries and most of the world has at one point or time seen horrible situations with mass rioting and people just trying to protect their family.. people will do crazy things during that period of time, and if someone feels they'd like to have machine guns JUST IN CASE, they should have the right.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Imagine 30 million americans armed with uzis ready to take back their white house on nov 2 if Bush wins.

 

[Banjo Tango]

1 - having these weapons available certainly does keep the government in check.. trust me, if our own military had to do things in our own country by a corrupt goverment, they'd not want to do it, and they'd not want to do it even more if they knew the people had machine guns out there.

2 - someone might want to protect themselves with an m16 instead of a shotgun or a handgun, whats wrong with that? i am talking about someone with a home..

3 - there have been many riots and bad situations in our country during its timeframe, but nothing horrible yet, but many countries and most of the world has at one point or time seen horrible situations with mass rioting and people just trying to protect their family.. people will do crazy things during that period of time, and if someone feels they'd like to have machine guns JUST IN CASE, they should have the right.

1 - How is it that countries without guns keep their governments in check? Are most democratic, gun-less nations only one step away from a Mad-Max police state?

2 - I think we can all agree that there should be SOME restriction on the type of weapon you can own (e.g. No grenade launchers or that thing from Predator)... the question is, where do you draw the line? What's excessive?

3 - Because arming everyone in the middle of a riot makes the situation BETTER.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Quite ironic since a cop died last night from an AK-47 or an Uzi or something like that. An assault rifle. The self-defense shit is a load of bull. There are 300M people in this country. The biggest fear is our own government who will steal our rights without a single shot ever being fired. Guns in general are stupid, they serve only to kill. If no one had a gun, it would be just as good as if everyone had a gun. Probably better b/c since humans are prone to irrational behavior, it would remove on method of murder...or at least make it harder to find.

I'm not stupid, guns will be around forever. But I blame the NRA for that more than the actual necessity. What are handguns used for besides killing people? You don't hunt with them. They serve no other purpose. What do you need a semiauto or fully automatic assault rifle for? If you have a real need for a gun with the kind of firepower, maybe you're fucked worse than that gun could hope to help you. Assault rifles are for large anti-personnel missions. Where you need to put down a large mass of people in short order. If there are large numbers of enemies at my doorstep, I think I'd just as soon wave the white flag. I've seen Commando. I don't think anyone would have a fighting chance against numerous attackers. Besides, is harboring that kind of fear and paranoia really healthy and really what we need in this society? Whatever, I hope Tom Delay meets his maker at the hands of one of these "hunting untensils". He didn't bring it to a vote b/c he knew it would be renewed. It's the worst form of politics ever, and it's again, why we need campaign finance reform. The NRA has its hands too deep in the pockets of our government. No single lobby should hold this much sway. People who support these violent weapons deserve to suffer from them so they can understand how devastating they can be.

That said, it doesn't change much. Violence will keep on the rise, for reasons other than assault rifles mostly. But maybe this is the catalyst for Titor's civil war. Maybe all the libruls are gonna arm up and clean house on these neo-cons. :lol That would be pretty ironic too. I've thought about owning a gun in case I wanted to kill someone. But that would be the only reason to have one. Shooting stuff is cool, but that's what I have my air rifle for. I can take down large game like soda cans and apples with no problem. When I need to tackle something larger than that, I'll head to my local supermarket. PEACE.

 

[commish]

Quite ironic since a cop died last night from an AK-47 or an Uzi or something like that. An assault rifle.

He died while the ban was in effect! OMG! And I bet all criminals would say "You know, I can't find me an Uzi, I will just give up my life of crime and work at Safeway". BTW, do you have a link to an article about this?

The self-defense shit is a load of bull.

Obviously you've never had the experience of being on the business end of a gun, knife, etc of someone who is out to do you or your family harm.

Guns in general are stupid, they serve only to kill.

You know, for some people, it's a hobby. And it's an Olympic sport.

You don't hunt with them (handguns).

Since when?

What do you need a semiauto or fully automatic assault rifle for?

You can't buy a fully automatic weapon nowadays. They have been heavily regulated since 1934.

Violence will keep on the rise, for reasons other than assault rifles mostly.

Exactly, so how can you complain so much about "assault rifles" and then turn around and say there are other factors that play a much bigger role in crime?

I've thought about owning a gun in case I wanted to kill someone. But that would be the only reason to have one.

This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.

Shooting stuff is cool, but that's what I have my air rifle for.

So, you admit that shooting is cool, yet above you question you say guns are stupid and serve only to kill?

I'm no gun nut, but I hate when people say things that aren't true.

 

[Deg]

Imagine 30 million americans armed with uzis ready to take back their white house on nov 2 if Bush wins.

there's this thing called the military... Using weapons aganist government just means civil war if history is anything to go by. I dont know where you guys get the idea having weapons = freedom. Many countries ofcourse are in much lawlessness.

 

[maharg]

This is assuming that the military would willingly go to war with the civilian populace, which is highly dubious. We're not exactly the Red Army here, a huge part of the American military is that we're soldier/civilians, not just soldiers.

The fallacy here is that when tyranny occurs, it occurs in one giant leap from "hello nice people" to "lets kill off 1/3 of the population." When Germany became fascist, it was because Hitler used the threat of internal and external manipulation (by Jews and foreigners largely) to justify the suspension of democratic rights. He called his own citizens enemies of the state, and that justified the use of military action on them. (note: use of Nazi Germany as an example is easily justified here -- we're talking the hypothetical situation of a government turning against its people, and Germany is an obvious example)

Please name a country where the soldiers are not also citizens.

 

[yoshifumi]

Folks, this really doesn't change much at all. You could still buy and sell rifles that were banned under the law as long as they were manufactured before sept 13 1994. Frequently the transition from pre-ban to post-ban specifications would mean little. A rifle made after the date would be considered a Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (and therefore controlled) if it had two or more of these qualifications:


-a folding or telescoping stock
-a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
-a bayonet mount
-a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
-a grenade launcher


This was a legal post-ban weapon:

Edit (since this came up in another discussion): Bear in mind that the lifting of the ban does *not* affect the controlled status of fully automatic weapons.

also larger magazines are now available. i think both magazine capacity and size laws change with the ban lifting.

but evilore is right, it really doesn't change much, it's not like we're talking automatic weapons being for sale on street corners.

 

[themadcowtipper]

Ordell Robbie : AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes.

 

[Deg]

cool. Can you get rocket launchers in the US? What about a mini gun?

 

[BuddyC]

I walked into class late today, but guess what we were talking about? Thanks GAF!

 

[Hournda]

Ordell Robbie : AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes.

According to a Reuters article I read, the AK-47 is still banned under a 1989 law. But you can still get comparative weapons such as an M-16 and what not.

 

[DarthWoo]

According to a Reuters article I read, the AK-47 is still banned under a 1989 law. But you can still get comparative weapons such as an M-16 and what not.

One of my gun-nut acquaintances has two CAR-15s, as well as what he described as a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47. I don't remember exactly what it's called, but it looks pretty identical. I remember a show on History Channel about the AK-47 and how pissed off Kalashnikov was about all the ripoffs. I'm guessing that if it is legal, it must probably be only capable of semi-auto fire.

Maybe instead of regulating the guns, the ammunition should be the main focus. Said acquaintance spoke of how he enjoys shooting off AP rounds at the range. He actually has to go to a bigger NRA range because the one he usually goes to only backs their targets with armor plating that his AP rounds will go right through. If people can buy such ammunition so easily, it doesn't really matter which gun they have to deploy it with. Heck, it's probably easier to build a make-shift gun than it is to produce enough homemade bullets to be of any use.

 

[UltimateMarioMan]

When the zombies attack you'll be glad gun stores have automatic weapons for sale!

 

[Phoenix]

When the zombies attack you'll be glad gun stores have automatic weapons for sale!

You fool, bullets don't stop zombies! For zombies you need flamethrowers, explosives, and cutting weapons to dismember them.

 

[Diablos]

Hmm, I don't know if this is as big of a deal as I once thought. For example, during this ban, AK-47's have been sold under different names with limited features... but it was still almost just as effective, which is all that matters when it comes to bodycounts sadly.