It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[Vesayen]

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.

[BustaMike]

IMO, there is no good reason for anyone except military personel to own Uzis, period.

[mrmitchell]

Freedom!

Ban guns from criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

[Spiffor]

It's good to see Americans killing each other with such glee. Sure spares Al Qaeda some work

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, let's shoot the criminals.

[Kuciwalker]

w00t! I want an uzi!

[GePap]

Thank God we can allow any jokel to buy fully automatic weapons again- I mean,without them, wehat are terrorists going to use to kill us?

[mrmitchell]

When it's right to lawyers or freedom of speech, everyone's all like, "OMFG the terrorists must have this even after we catch them." But what makes guns different? Is everyone who wants to buy an Uzi a terrorist? Is it fair or legal for the government to restrict a citizen's rights?

[BustaMike]

That's ridiculous mitchell. Freedom of speech doesn't mow down 21 people in a hailstorm of bullets.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap
Thank God we can allow any jokel to buy fully automatic weapons again- I mean,without them, wehat are terrorists going to use to kill us?

box cutters

[Ted Striker]

assaut weapons

[mrmitchell]

Indirectly, freedom of speech could damn well mow down the whole country, something guns probably couldn't do on their own.

But we don't ban it because it's in the Constitution. Just like "the right to bear arms" is.

Now don't get me wrong. I would be in favor of an assault gun ban in a Constitutional amendment. But it ain't.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Indirectly, freedom of speech could damn well mow down the whole country, something guns probably couldn't do on their own.

But we don't ban it because it's in the Constitution. Just like "the right to bear arms" is.

Now don't get me wrong. I would be in favor of an assault gun ban in a Constitutional amendment. But it ain't.

Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to a weapons ban of any sort, and any constitutional amendment to stop it.

Assault weapons what weapons aren't "assault weapons". It's just PC doublespeak.

[Felch]

If you have a problem with firearms being legal in the United States, there is a way of addressing that problem. You amend the Constitution. Until it's amended though, you need to just accept that this is the law of the land.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Felch
If you have a problem with firearms being legal in the United States, there is a way of addressing that problem. You amend the Constitution. Until it's amended though, you need to just accept that this is the law of the land.

It will never happen. The NRA exists, and has enormous influence for a reason.

[mrmitchell]

A Constitutional ban wouldn't do any good anyways, though. If people want them, they'll get them some way or another.

You can't put the cat back in the bag.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
A Constitutional ban wouldn't do any good anyways, though. If people want them, they'll get them some way or another.

You can't put the cat back in the bag.

I wouldn't be too sure. In western countries where weapon-ownership is restricted, it is pretty difficult to obtain a smuggled weapon, and I have never heard of assault weapons wielded by petty criminals.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

its all in the culture - americans feel the need to have guns, prolly a throwback to the days of the old west. europeans are used to not having anything (the feudal lords didnt allow arms of any sort) so thats why even when illegal, very few europeans have them.

[Odd]

What I am really pissed is why can't I have a nuclear weapon! You know, nukes are soooo cool, and if the soviets or the chinese invade, I want to be able to protect my family, ya know. Although I agree that maybe there should be some restrictions for people that have already used nukes against civilians before, I don't know a reason that they deny us of our freedom to carry nuclear weapons!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
its all in the culture - americans feel the need to have guns, prolly a throwback to the days of the old west.

Such is conciliable with restricted gun ownership. In particular, hunting rifles are quite widespread in France. One needs a hunting permit to obtain weapons in this category.
It is also possible to own handguns if you belong to a shooting range. I don't think France's laws are radically different from its neighbours'.

europeans are used to not having anything (the feudal lords didnt allow arms of any sort) so thats why even when illegal, very few europeans have them.

True. But the mentalities can only progress if the law is made in the first place.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

nah, im not against guns, just explaining why americans want them and europeans dont want them.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

more guns dont always mean more killings - geneva has 300,000 guns and 300,000 people and thats one of the safest cities in the world (not deaths by guns)

[ixnay]

assault weapons != automatic weapons

Automatic weapons are still banned as far as I know, guys; the assault weapons ban mostly banned weapons that fell under ridiculous guidelines for how they looked.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ixnay
the assault weapons ban mostly banned weapons that fell under ridiculous guidelines for how they looked.

No. The ones that were banned were banned because they were easily concealable, had flash suppressors, and had magazines of more than ten bullets. These were not weapons for people who like to hunt animals, but for people who like to hunt humans.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I'm torn on the bill. I've become more and more supportive of gun owner rights since Bush has come into power...but its more because his administration scares me.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No. The ones that were banned were banned because they were easily concealable, had flash suppressors, and had magazines of more than ten bullets. These were not weapons for people who like to hunt animals, but for people who like to hunt humans.

Or to defend yourself from being hunted.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Or to defend yourself from being hunted.

How can you defend yourself for being hunted if you conceal your firepower?

[Patroklos]

Why do we have plain clothed cops and cop cars? Not knowing makes it a deterent all of the time, instead of just when I can see it. Old adage about land mine signs being much more effective than land mines themselves.

I always thought we should just tax ammunition insanely as well as reduce production. Guns last forever, ammunition doesn't. Ammunition is produced to exacting specifications, so you probobly won't see too many people producing their own. Also, while it would be more expensive you could still procure a few shotgun shells to go hunting or fill your home defense magizine, but not 600 rounds of 5.62 to go rob a bank.

And ammunition is NOT protected by the constitution.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Why do we have plain clothed cops and cop cars? Not knowing makes it a deterent all of the time, instead of just when I can see it. Old adage about land mine signs being much more effective than land mines themselves.

Uhm, land mine signs being more effective than landmines themselves would contradict the point you're trying to make. Lands mines are concealed. When you put a sign there, they aren't.

[Alexander's Horse]

I can't see any justification at all for citizens to own military style assault rifles or other automatic weapons.