You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-09-2007, 08:46 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1307 Times on 665 Posts
Likes Given: 151


Originally Posted by BrassMonkey View Post
I have been at conflict with myself over that very issue before. While on one hand the idea of somebody stashing a nuke in their basement scares the hell out of me, on the other hand it is hard to draw the line. I have always viewed "arms" as implied by the Second Ammendment to mean small arms. I tend to go by the resposible use test. For example there can be a resposible use for a private party to own and facilitate a AR15, 1911a, or Sig P226. I don't see a resposible use for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in that same capacity.
I'll argue that the Framer's intent was for the people to be armed in such a way they could overthrow an out-of-control, oppressive government as well as to come together as a trained militia to defend the country against a foreign force with similar weaponry. While people did own personal firearms (ball and shot), some also owned cannon and had resources for bombs. No weapons of the day -- regardless of how leading-edge or expensive -- were off-limits to individual citizens to own.

(The framers also never intended there to be a standing army. But since we have a very sophisticated standing military and the average guy on the street can't touch most of the arsenal at our military's disposal, we're pretty much screwed on that front. That's a topic for another thread, however.)

There's some dissonance here with regard to principle: on the one hand, I don't think there should be any limit because none was specified. On the other, WMD do seem a bit over the top for Joe Sixpack to be collecting and obviously I would not want these weapons out "in the wild".
bkt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 10:20 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
allmons's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Athens
Posts: 363
Default There is a very simple rule that would work well....

Any weapon that an American Peace Officer can own and / or carry should be legal for citizens to own and carry.

That would preempt the ridiculous "nuclear weapons" and "fighter jets" straw man arguments that you get into with disingenuous anti-gunners.

The way the Constitution reads, no civil servant should have weapons that citizens cannot possess, in my ( and true scholars ) opinion.

Fire everyone in Congress NOW.
allmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2007, 04:49 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 101

When the second amendment was written private citizens often had better weapons than the military of the time. Even up to the civil war many solders brought their own guns to battle. Now with the over crowded neighborhoods we have today you can't allow someone to keep explosives and the such but any and all small arms should be legal for anyone who is sane enough to own a gun.
Fred Thompson 2008
A5Mag12 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2007, 05:10 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 50

Using the Military's definition of an Assault Weapon: "A SELECTIVE FIRE (Semi Auto or Full Auto) weapon that fires a reduced power cartridge ..."

1) None of the "Assault Weapons" on Mr. Clinton's list were a true Assault weapon.

2) All were a semi auto only civilian version of the military rifle.

3) Those that fired a full power cartridge like the .30-06 or 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) would not be an assault weapon, even if they were selective fire.

4) Only three of the guns on the ban list had ever been used in a crime.

5) The guns were banned because they are black and look "mean."

On a related note, there was one benefit of the ban. The full auto/selective fire versions of the banned semi auto only guns were NOT banned, AND, the Federal Excise Tax for class 3 Arms was lowered from $500.00 to $25.00
So it became easier - and cheaper -to acquire the full auto/selective fire versions

The Supreme Court ruled back in the late 60's or early/mid 70's (soon after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed) that excessive taxation on a product such as ammunition is unconstitutional.

As for the 2nd, as others have pointed out, makes no limits on what kinds of arms can be born by the people, but I think WMD's are a bit over the top for Joe 12 pack especially in this day and age.
Gun Control is a MUST! If you cannot control your gun get one you CAN!
deerhuntguy is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Assault weapons and gun conrtol Livefreedom Politics, Religion and Controversy 16 06-12-2009 12:36 PM
Assault Weapons at Sportsman's Warehouse Bigcountry02 Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 7 05-16-2009 01:12 PM
legislator interview on assault weapons Musket Politics, Religion and Controversy 14 11-29-2008 12:06 PM
H.R. 6257: The new Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act opaww Legal and Activism 12 06-23-2008 11:44 PM
Reactivation of the '95 Assault Weapons Ban dglockster Legal and Activism 12 02-02-2008 07:45 PM