portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government

Assault Weapons Ban - gone as of midnight

The ban expires at midnight, some like it, others hate it. I just wanted to throw in my two cents and see what you guys think.
The AWB is now gone. For those who do not know it, the AWB bans any new rifles with more than two of the following features:

pistol grip
heat sheild (the perforated metal sleeve you see on some guns to prevent burns)
detachable magazine
ammo capacity greater than 10 rounds
bayonet lug (small metal square near the end of the barrel that bayonets attach to)
semi automatic fire (means every time you pull the trigger, a round is shot)
Folding or telescoping stock,
Flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
Grenade launcher.

My opinion is that gun control can be a good thing, but this law is crap and needs to go. It does not restrict most of the characteristics of guns that actually make them "more lethal." Under this law, my grandfathers .22 rifle is illegal to make. This rifle shoots the smallest, least lethal commercially available ammo and has a magazine that takes several minutes to reload/swap out. It would be almost impossible to use this to kill anyone.

On the other hand, my 30.06 mauser is NOT banned. It is a Nazi WWII sniper rifle that I have fixed up for deer hunting. In a city, a person could climb a tall building and kill pretty much anyone downtown from as far away as anyone can see. It shoots a very large, very lethal round and can accurately put it in a target a very long distance away. It can do this five times and then be reloaded rather fast.

This is why I think the law is crap, and needs to go. If it is re-written, the legislators need to actually get "gun folks" to sit down with them and get some useful advice. People who do not understand guns can not write good gun laws the same way people who have no medical background can not write good drug laws.

What are your ideas? post below.
How many penises.......er guns 13.Sep.2004 10:42

do

you need?

With the lifting of the ban 19 more rapid fire guns are now legal:
(AP)
The 19 named assault-style firearms banned under a 1994 law that expires Monday:

* AK-47 and all models of the Norinco, Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs, designed in the former Soviet Union.

* Uzi and Galil, both made by Action Arms Israeli Military Industries.

* TEC-9, TEC-22 and TEC-DC9, manufactured by Intratec.

* SWD M-10, M-11, M-11-9 and M-12. Based on the design of the MAC-10, their full-automatic cousin, these assault pistols are designed to fire many bullets over a wide area in seconds.

* Street Sweeper and Striker 12 and other revolving cylinder semiautomatic shotguns.

* Beretta AR-70 and SC-70, used by armed forces in a number of countries including Italy, Jordan and Malaysia.

* Colt AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle that is the U.S. military's standard-issue rifle.

* Several weapons manufactured by Fabrique Nationale, the FN-FAL, FN-LAR and FNC. The guns are used by the armed forces of more than 90 countries.

* Steyr AUG, a rifle made in Germany.

You need an automatic to hunt? You must be some lame-ass hunter.

disarm the pigs, national guard, and the us armed forces, then we'll talk. 13.Sep.2004 10:59

renegade citizen

...ah, yes, life in this racist shit pile called amerika is Sooooo Fine! the poor of all colors getting raped by the rich, killed by kop goon squads, and the pwogs 'n liberals want us to feel safer being out gunned by the paid killers of the state. if you don't want an assault rifle, don't buy one. the rest of us may want to shoot back.

It's a shame 13.Sep.2004 13:50

Sheepdog

Still can't have RPGs or fully automatic firearms.
You ever look at the list of banned weapons? It's as large as a bible.

this rules 13.Sep.2004 15:35

god is dead because we killed him

I've been meaning to purchase a couple of uzi's. Now we don't have to flirt with the idea of the revolution, now they have a reason for the police state... but it won't last long.

fascists demand an unarmed citizenry 13.Sep.2004 15:37

GRINGO STARS

FOR gun control; Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Benito Mussolini

"For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"
-- Adolf Hitler, 1935

AGAINST gun control; Mahatma Gandhi

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Mass Murder REQUIRES Unarmed Victims
GENOCIDE IS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH GUN CONTROL

Gun laws don't work. They never have and they never will. By removing all firearms from citizens, the government is then able to dictate anything it wants and not fear a possible uprising. For years, governments have either restricted or confiscated firearms. The relationship between gun confiscation or restriction and genocide that took place will never be forgotten. Here are some of the facts:

When guns are outlawed, only governments will own guns.
56 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century.

Turkey established gun control in 1911.
* From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.
* From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
* From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938.
* From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, socialists, homosexuals, trade unionists, disabled and mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
* From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
* From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
* From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1937, four years after the end of Prohibition, the United States Congress enacted the National Firearms Act in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in order to create jobs for idle Alcohol Revenue agents. This law ultimately led to the creation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). In 1993, 86 members of a "religious cult" residing outside Waco, Texas were exterminated by the BATF because of unsubstantiated allegations that they had failed to purchase $200 tax stamps for certain firearms in their possession as required by the unconstitutional 1937 National Firearms Act. Congress is currently considering passage of additional unconstitutional gun control laws in response to a few widely-reported-by-the-corporate-media acts of mass violence perpetrated by deranged individuals. It remains to be seen how many more innocent members of minority groups will be exterminated in the name of these unconstitutional laws.

If you were adding up the numbers, the amount would total 56 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments; governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating guns.

People are at far more risk from their own government than all the Eric Harrises and Dylan Kiebolds of the world.

"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
-- Aristotle

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
--William S. Burroughs

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State"
-- Heinrich Himmler, Nazi leader

Help make genocide safe for the governments of the world:
Support international gun control.

Gun Control: White Man's Law - the racist and elitist roots of gun control:
 http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/whitelaw.htm

The Racist Origins of US Gun Control;
 http://www.diac.com/~ekwall2/info/Racist_Origins.shtml

The history of gun control in America has targeted blacks and other minorities. Citizens Opposing Racism and Discrimination (CORAD) believes that gun control on law-abiding citizens is racist:
 http://www.coradpress.com/gun_control.htm

The Racist Roots of Gun Control:
 http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

re: fascists demand an unarmed citizenry 13.Sep.2004 18:15

Lock and Load

If fascists demand an unarmed citizentry, why are American fascists (ie. Right Wingers and the Bush Regime) supportive of ending gun control?

Secondly, this clown lumps together a variety of nations from Left Wing (Communist) to Third World Right Wing countries to Western dicatorships and calls them all "fascists." Never mind the little fact that the Communists were fighting against the Fascists (Nazis) during WWII while Americans like Prescott Bush and Henry Ford financed and supported the Nazis.

Hell, I say give Americans all the guns they want--as long as they use them on EACH OTHER instead of those of us non-Americans.

America was born in bled. It was bred in blood. And it will die in blood.

lock and load, name calling isn't nice. 13.Sep.2004 18:55

god is dead because we killed him

The meaning of the word "fascist" can be found here.  http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascist&x=0&y=0
Who needs gun control to keep the population incontrol when cluster bombs mass media, and surveillence can be more efficient?

What modern nation wasn't born in blood?

right-wing US politicians do not uniformly support gun control 13.Sep.2004 21:45

GRINGO STARS

Lock and Load, I hope you checked out the definition of "fascism" in the helpful comment above. Keep in mind that war is not exclusively ideological. Fascist countries are in conflict with each other all the time.

JOHN EDWARDS' SUPPORT FOR GUN CONTROL MIRRORS BUSH'S:
 http://www.csgv.org/news/news_releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=86

GUN CONTROL SENATORS CHEER BUSH:
 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32170

UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH:
 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32094

GUN SUPPORTERS BAFFLED BY BUSH'S STANCE:
 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32074

DON'T BLAME LIBERALS FOR GUN CONTROL:
 http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

Fascist HATE gun control 13.Sep.2004 23:19

Adammonte9000

I'm 100% opposed to disarming citizens, but that's not what gun control is. Gun control is regulating the sale of dangerous weapons on the market. Plus, Hitler, Stalin, etc. would've hated gun control because they USED GUNS to oppress others. Why not keep guns out of the hands of the oppressors? And while we're at it, why not disarm the statesmen and cut the pentagon budget?

"dangerous?" 14.Sep.2004 01:18

Bill

How is a gun with a heat shield more "dangerous" than one without? Or a pistol grip? Yeah, full auto is dangerous, but that has been illegal since the 1930s, this ban that just died did not regulate those guns. It only regulated cosmetic stuff (except for the ammo capacity restrictions).

Face it, this law sucked ass no matter what side you were on. If you hate guns, this law did nothing. If you like guns, it was just irritating as all hell.

Oh, one more thing. Look through that list of "banned guns" and tell me how many your average gang-banger could afford. Most of those things cost over a grand each! Bad guys can't blow that kind of cash on a gun they have to throw away after every shot so they can avoid prosecution, they use $20 used saturday night specials for most crimes!

you dumbass pacifist 14.Sep.2004 01:59

violin

"You need an automatic to hunt? You must be some lame-ass hunter"

this law had nothing to do with automatic rifles. go make another pooka shell necklace you wanker tard.

and yes my clit is bigger than yours.

Definition of Fascism 14.Sep.2004 03:45

Lock and Load

That dictionary definition of Fascism is so general and encompassing as to be meaninglessness.

By this definition, every nation in the world to one degree or another could be defined as fascist.

Regardless, how does your dictionary definition NOT fit contemporary America to a T?

If you want to know what Fascism is go read what IL Duce, Mussolini, himself said when he defined it as Corporatism or the Capitalist State. Now, who does that describe but the USA?

If you want to read an even better definition of fascism, check out the link below about Friendly Fascism.

BTW, Gringo, you are correct about Fascist nations fighting each other. The USA and Nazi Germany did ultimately fight each other after all.


We have global communication networks but do we have a PLAN? 14.Sep.2004 07:30

god is dead because we killed him

Despite our nationa's growing resemblence to fascism, either definition, we are still a long way off from being the "real thing". I guess that might mean something different to you than I, regaurdless we still have the legal capacity to bring change to our system. Yes the coporate dollars pumped into our government out numbers our voting population, but that does not detract from the principle that authority is granted to authorities.Legal or illegal this is a universal truth no matter what the face of the government is, socialist corporatist wtf ever. The harsh reality is that any constricting policies placed upon us are our responcability to remove. I hate to sound like some soul sucking republican but I think it's fairly true to say that everytime the general population loses "liberty" it's their own damn fault for not properly attending it. Self imposed impotence kills. Apathy kills. Slogans numb the mind.

Maybe the answer is more social gatherings. Close the distance between people with like minded ideas. Discuss options. Make a plan. Work within legal channels. Study opertunism. Petition the government for redress of grievances. make friends with lawyers. We could start an organization that does public works/awareness/charity/militia there I said it. If there is to be a revolution there needs to be a non profit - tax deductable back bone. Think long term as well as short term. First I'll need to finish college.



What do you think?

Adam, the definition of "gun control" = CITIZEN gun control 14.Sep.2004 07:36

GRINGO STARS

...which is precisely what Hitler and Stalin enacted so that citizens would be disarmed. They did not limit the weaponry of the police and army AT ALL, and they never intended to. Which is why tens of millions were slaughtered.

I'm all for cutting the pentagon budget, but disarming the state is never going to happen. Their authority is based on the political "right" to use force to enforce their laws. Speaking of disarming the state is a utopian fantasy, unfortunately. As far as keeping weapons from the oppressors, that is a good argument for being armed yourself, because that is the only way you will ever disarm an armed-and-dangerous oppressor.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you GRINGO 14.Sep.2004 11:05

Adammonte9000

I just think you're definition of "gun control" is wrong. Here in the US, gun control laws (whatever you want to call them) don't allow the government to go into people's homes and take their guns, thank goodness. They just regulate the sale of guns on the market. That's what the assault weapons ban does, that's what backround checks and safety locks on guns do. Example, Canada has strong gun control laws, yet 7 in 10 families owns a gun. See my point? Also, without arms control, tyrannies arise. Remember that states disarm citizens because they're NOT disarmed, they have armies and weapons which they use to enforce police states. We need to disarm the state, which I wish politicians would put more of an effort on. Regardless of what your definition of "gun control" is, I do support the second amendment and oppose forcefully disarming citizens. However, I also support keeping dangerous arms out of the hands of violent state authority and out of the hands of terrorists which the brady bill does, and that doesn't violate the second.

please explain 14.Sep.2004 12:37

GRINGO STARS

Political power comes from the authority to legally use force. There has never once, in rcorded history, a government which has disarmed itself. That would essentially be a state giving up all power to enforce laws, indeed it would be a state giving up all its power. Please explain WHY a state would do something that is entirely against its nature. It seems to me that the idea of oppressors voluntarily giving up their arms is ludicrously utopian.

I used to be infavor of gun control. Not anymore 14.Sep.2004 12:53

Tom

Dangerous times are coming and we need to arm ourselves for our owm protection. Cannot trust the govenment antmore. The more assult rifles the better.

let's shoot that cloud of nerve gas with our guns! 14.Sep.2004 15:10

Cannon

Automatic weapons? You guys are seriously proposing that we can win with those? The government has bombs, napalm, nukes, nerve gas, biological weapons, navy seals, tanks, cruise missles, and the like. Have fun with your guns, and the US airforce will have fun with theirs. Let's see who comes out on top.
If I arrive at your guerrilla camp to find you guys are armed only with assualt rifles, I am packing back out of there. You can send me a postcard from Valhalla.

Everyone is aware of the government's arsenal of WMDs, Cannon 14.Sep.2004 15:27

GRINGO STARS

Consider ownership of firearms as a deterrant, not as a foolproof defense. Obviously, the government has overwhelming weaponry. But like a bike-thief who prefers an untethered bike over a bike with a huge Krypto lock on it, the government would rather wait until the populace is disarmed to strike. Which is why having legal access to firarms, ensuring more guns in peoples' homes, is better than gun control.

I believe it's a worst case scenario 14.Sep.2004 15:33

Mr. Josh

Sure a revolution of armed citizen would be difficult, but I believe self defense is the issue at hand. Even the starving Iraqi's are putting up a fight one way or another with out a 399 billion dollar budget, I'm sure a well armed cascadian militia could do the same if it had too. If defense was truly the issue at hand, support would come from people of all walks of life, rather than just the left. Then again even revolutionary acts would be popular if the cause was universal. Just wait and see if they ever reinstate the draft... guess who's forces I'd join?

re: let's shoot that cloud of nerve gas with our guns! 14.Sep.2004 17:42

Lock and Load

"Automatic weapons? You guys are seriously proposing that we can win with those? The government has bombs, napalm, nukes, nerve gas, biological weapons, navy seals, tanks, cruise missles, and the like. Have fun with your guns, and the US airforce will have fun with theirs. Let's see who comes out on top.
If I arrive at your guerrilla camp to find you guys are armed only with assualt rifles, I am packing back out of there. You can send me a postcard from Valhalla"

This comment is funny and very correct. This whole "let's get some assault weapons and defend ourselves from the gubment" line of thinking is hilariously misguided. If you want to fight the US government with automatic weapons, you are going to get yourselves killed.

Remember WACO?

Remember the bombing of MOVE in Philadelphia in the 1980s?

Remember the shootouts that the Black Panthers had with the police and the FBI in the 1960s and 1970s?

Who won each of these battles every time?

Good luck with your guns, guys.

You're gonna need it.

Hey cannon. 14.Sep.2004 17:56

Yanqui Latina.

i think your cute.
but yeah, seriously, i think we need to think stop trying to use the masters weapons to destroy the master. that isnt going to work, and will just turn us into the master anyway. not that i am absolutely opposed to the idea of using weapons- but they should be a last resort and not something you put allot of planning into, because it likely isnt gonna work. And in the meantime, the likely increase in people being killed by maniacs worth a last-resort defense? i thought we were for the people.
Now go ahead, everyone, and yell at me.

Those are minor skirmishes - let's talk about the big picture 14.Sep.2004 17:58

GRINGO STARS

Remember Vietnam? Who won? Hint: not the US.

Remember Iraq? You should: it's happening right now. Who is winning? Hint: it's not the US.

Who had immensely more firepower each time? Hint: the US.

Yes, Gringo, 14.Sep.2004 20:00

YanquiLatina

They did win, because, among other things, two major differences from the u.s.; one, the U.S. army was in an unfamiliar territory both times; and two, both iraq and vietnam commanded mass popular support. is this something you think we have?
and secondly, isnt there something, to quote the liberals, to exhusting all peaceful options first? the left puports to care about the people- yet the argument for violent revolution seems to see a significant portion of them as expendible.

Yes, people trying to not be slaughtered en masse would enjoy popular support 14.Sep.2004 22:09

GRINGO STARS

Yanqui Latina, I don't think Americans, living off of the labor of most of the rest of the world, is uncomfortable enough for a violent revolution, if that is what you're getting at. But I do think that keeping firearm ownership legal and common is one of the best deterrents against a mass slaughter of "undesirables", like so many other disarmed people have suffered (which is the point of my comments in this thread). I am definitely all for peaceful solutions. But to peacefully give up weaponry is to willingly give up a last resort that may very possibly be necessary.

Although I wasn't talking about revolution until you mentioned it...

The Right also purports to care about people, yet supports capitalism, a system which allows 38,000 humans (mostly infants) to die of starvation EVERY DAY on this planet. More people die in easily-avoidable (by worker-friendly reforms) workplace accidents than wars, in any given time period. Year per year. So actually the class war is ALREADY being fought, but only the oppressors are aware of this. It seems many people, on the Left and on the Right, are unaware of this.

and again we go. 14.Sep.2004 23:52

Yanqui Latina

Gringo stars-
you said you were not talking about revolution until i brought it up- However, there is this: "Remember Vietnam? Who won? Hint: not the US. Remember Iraq? You should: it's happening right now. Who is winning? Hint: it's not the US. " which i assumed you were talking about in context to revolution, but maybe i was wrong on that...
and i am not saying that we shouldnt keep guns around for self-defense last resort stuff ... which i think i said in a previous post, but maybe i didnt. i do support that, i just have a natural sketchiness towards very large guns and the ability of people to misuse them, because lets face it, some people in this society have been driven to the brink of madness and take it out in very destructive and lethal ways. maybe i am saying this because i didnt escape public school all that long ago.
and yes, i know the class war is being fought already, it always has been, the lower classes have just been on the losing end of it for pretty much forever.

Yanqui Latina 15.Sep.2004 08:09

Mr. Josh

I can see why you'd be a little worried about the idea of legal assault weapons, I actually remember watching the live news reports of the Columbine killings on tvs at my highschool. Rememember they used guns that were illegal at the time, allthough mostly they used legal weapons (not sold to them legally of course but legal for most to buy). Vietnam and Iraq were examples of successful(guerilla)self defense, as I understand. Maybe you've been told these countries actually posed a threat to the U.S., but still, they acted out of defense against a far superior (budget, training?, numbers, technologically)army with measurable success. The real weapons you should be fearing aren't available at "sporting"good stores. I think the whole arguement has been against the futility of wanting to defend your self against an up and coming tyranny.

Clarification 15.Sep.2004 10:11

Farther Time

I'm not sure yet where I fall on this one; I have to say I'm enjoying the debate so far, and appreciate the intelligent discussion and lack of flaming on this highly emotional issue.

I am, however, a stickler for detail, and wanted to add a bit of clartification to some information, or more specifically terminology, that is not factually accurate...

This is not, and never was, an "assault weapon ban" making anything "illegal." All of the weapons covered in this legislation continued to be readily available for purchase, legally, at any gun show, shop, or from private resident to resident. Likewise, it was not ever illegal to possess any of the listed baned guns.

What the legislation did do is ban "the importation and production" of certain firearms, with the specific charateristics described so accurately by Teddy above (i.e., flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc.). In other words, Colt (in the US) could no longer produce AR-15'a with flash hiders and FN could not export their rifles to the US. Ones already in circulation prior to the "ban," however, were still fair game and completely legal for sale, use, and possession (althought their prices apparently increased some two or three fold - capitalism at it's best). The same is true of the high capacity magazines and other items affected by the legislation. In other words, although there were guns identified in the legislation used at Columbine, there were no "illegal" ones used. They were all perfectly legal.

Anyway, just a clarification. I tend to fall into the "guns are bad" camp, and thus my investigation into the specifics of the legislation, but I can see and have a newfound appreciation for (given the horrendous atrocities occuring in the middle east) the argument on the other side. So please continue, 'cause I'm still soaking it in...

"self-defense last resort stuff" = revolution 15.Sep.2004 10:12

GRINGO STARS

I was speaking in the context of people trying to stay alive, which is what Vietnam and Iraq was/is. When an entire people is being systematically killed, I would hope that the survivors would fight back with full force. If enough people defend themselves, you could call it a revolution, especially if it has the effect of ending the attempted genocide.

Guns are merely a tool. They can be used to oppress, and they can be used to fight oppression. The moral absolutists who claim that ALL violence is bad no matter what the outcome are comparable to the Ashcrofts, Rumsfelds and Bushes who also are moral absolutists that deny the shades of grey that reality puts into every black and every white.

Ownership of large guns does't control the gun-owner, forcing them towards sketchy behaviuour. Rather, many sketchy individuals with a will towards power use guns as an effective tool to gain power and oppress others. Not everyone is like that. Many countries all over the world are heavily armed without the media-inspired fear that the US trillion-dollar corporate media instills in Americans, making it seem normal to shoot first and ask questions later.

Thank you for the correction father time 15.Sep.2004 14:54

Mr. Josh

I think it is important to add that some of these guns aren't cheap, or available to petty criminals you might say. While the market will fluctuate as production increases, a quick search online will show you that an Uzi or the innocent sounding "street sweeper" (semi auto revolving shotgun) will cost those who want it a couple, to several, thousand dollars. As I also understand some of these guns are range in the several hundred. Obviously my perspective is based on little market research but I still think it's safe to say that most criminals aren't going to shell out this kind of money so they can break into your house or mug you. I think these are reserved for either the enthusists, the freeman of montana, or people who want to protect them selves from a much larger home invader.

exactly 15.Sep.2004 18:15

GRINGO STARS

So-called "assault" rifles are only involved in 2% to 3% of US crimes. They differ from rifles only in the fact that their magazine holds more than 10 rounds. Before the ban, "assault rifle" meant a rifle that was fully automatic. The gun control lobby used this term in an intentionally misleading way to ban weapons whose only crime is LOOKING scary/militaristic.

.22 grandfathers rifle 13.Nov.2004 12:29

a little boy

any gun no matter what type can kill. even your grandfather's .22 rifle can kill. people also learn to reload faster then you think.