Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

The AWB is now history !!!

manny78

Plat Hero
Platinum
Congrats ! It finally happened. Clinton and Laura Brady must be pissed off big time.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/12/gun.ban.ap/index.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 wasn'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.
 
I thought this was about Average White Band.
 
gymrat said:
I think coparing The US to Switzerland is poor logic.

As bad as stating that more guns manufactured = more guns on the street. News assault rifles usually go for 1000$ and more, not in your average ghetto gangsta boy's budget. Vermont is known for being gun-friendly and it's probably one of the safest state. On the other hand, highy regulated cities like Chicago, Washington, New York, Los Angeles are known for their high crime rate.

Btw, you live in Canada right ? Did you know we could buy Sig 552, 14" shotguns (with non-restricted status) and Valmet M78 while americans can't import any of these ? How come I've never met any badboy with one of these ? I guess they got scared by the price tag...
 
fair enough. I'm not wanting to get into some stupid gun debate. I don't own a gun, and never will.
 
while i usually do agree with most republican positions and would like to see more right wing influence here in Europe, i never could follow the arguments of the pro-gun people. why does a civilian need to own an assault rife or a machine gun? it is understandable, that one would like to have a small pistol to protect himself but the freedom has to stop somewhere, or would anyone like his neighbor to have a nuclear warhead? you have to draw the line somewhere; why not do it there, where weapons are primarly used for attacking and not for defense?
 
Triple-G said:
while i usually do agree with most republican positions and would like to see more right wing influence here in Europe, i never could follow the arguments of the pro-gun people. why does a civilian need to own an assault rife or a machine gun? it is understandable, that one would like to have a small pistol to protect himself but the freedom has to stop somewhere, or would anyone like his neighbor to have a nuclear warhead? you have to draw the line somewhere; why not do it there, where weapons are primarly used for attacking and not for defense?

What is an assault rifle ? How are assault rifles more dangerous than a Remington 700 ?
 
manny78 said:
What is an assault rifle ? How are assault rifles more dangerous than a Remington 700 ?

Are sniper rifles assault weapons? I'm more concerned about fast-repeating weaponry....I don't think people should have something more powerful than the police as a basic ideal.
 
bluepeter said:
So what does someone need an Uzi for?

To take down a herd of deer in close-quarters combat situations. It's hard to use a full-length rifle in a densely wooded area...and you need the fully automatic weapon because them deer move quick after the first shot. :rolleyes:
 
Top Bottom