v'ܩ Why the Assault Weapons Ban is Baloney
Home > General Politics, Gun Rights > Why the Assault Weapons Ban is Baloney

Why the Assault Weapons Ban is Baloney

February 14th, 2009

I’ve already talked about the problems with the Obama administration’s goal to require that all firearms be child-proofed as well as the misinformation about the “Gun Show Loophole” (That isn’t a loop hole at all). I wanted to finish this series with a discussion on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The sad truth of this legislation that Obama administration would like to make permanent is that it doesn’t do anything. This legislation does nothing at all, it did nothing the last time it was enacted except serve as a way for politicians to look tough on guns.

What Exactly is/was banned (What is an Assault Weapon)?

The Obama administration has talked of reinstating the original assault weapons ban and making it permanent so it is only fitting we look at what was accomplished with the assault weapons ban. The ban made it illegal to manufacture or purchase a list of specific firearms it considered to be Assault Weapons and gave guidelines for determining which firearms were assault weapons. According to the ban an assault weapon was defined as a semi-automatic weapon with two or more features from a published list.

For rifles these could be: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount (Because we all use bayonets for committing violent crimes), A flash suppressor or threaded barrel for accommodating a flash suppressor, or a detachable high capacity (more than 10 round) magazine. For pistols the law was equally absurd considering the overall weight of the pistol, whether or not the magazine went inside the grip, whether the gun was a semi-automatic version of a firearm that had originally been automatic, etc.

These Rules Don’t MEAN Anything.

During the period the assault weapons ban was active no one stopped selling ‘Assault Weapons’ instead these guns were altered slightly so that they no longer offended legislators delicate sensibilities and life went on without a hitch. Firearm manufacturers stopped putting threaded barrels on their guns and stopped selling magazines that held more than the requisite 10 rounds. They renamed these new versions of their firearms and kept selling them; The AR15 became the XR15 and the firearm industry didn’t even notice this bill.

In fact the legislative director of the “Violence Policy Center” even pointed out the legislation did nothing saying,

“The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.”

The most laughable thing, however, is that it is specifically SEMI-automatic firearms. The Assault Weapons Ban had no bearing on fully automatic weapons. These weapons remain under the purview of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Not to mention the belief that these ‘Assault Weapons‘ are somehow more dangerous than any number of other semi automatic weapons that existed at the same time and fired the same ammunition simply because they had a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.

The Numbers.

The numbers are interesting to look at also. Assault weapons never accounted for more than 2-8% of all violent gun related crimes. Senator Dianne Feinstein, however, saw things differently saying, “In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working, it was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available.” The only problem with the Senators logic is that the number of weapons identical to these Assault Weapons that were produced with slight modifications during the 10 years the assault weapons ban was active was 1.17 million, there were only 1.5 million in private hands before the ban.

Clearly the graph above shows a dramatic drop in violent gun related crimes around the time the original assault weapons ban but gun ownership rates continued to go up during this period. According to the US Dept. of Justices count of the number of ‘assault weapons’ used in violent crimes before and after the assault weapons ban, assault weapons were used in 66% fewer crimes. Instead of constituting only 3% of the number of violent gun related crimes they accounted for only 1.6% of the same crimes during the bane.

There just isn’t enough evidence available to show that the assault weapons ban in any way related to the drop in gun crimes we’ve seen over the last decade and for the Obama administration to push this in their agenda shows they just want to gain favor with the liberal left.

If you enjoyed this, check my list of the 101 Best Gun Quotes Ever

  1. Carl in Chicago
    February 24th, 2009 at 20:17 | #1

    Nice. I enjoyed the article and it presented good argument.

    But we’d make more headway if we’d quit refering to semiauto firearms as “assault weapons.”

    What is the sense in that?

    You can call a turd a bon bon, but it’s still a turd and you’d still be incorrect.

  2. February 24th, 2009 at 23:06 | #2

    We certainly don’t agree that semi-auto guns are “assault weapons,” we were just pointing out that that is what was banned by the ridiculous law. Many people wrongly assume that the ban is for automatic weapons and that is why they support it.

  3. Carl in Chicago
    February 25th, 2009 at 07:46 | #3

    I agree Clarky. Many people do wrongly assume the ban is about autoguns and machine guns.

    What I am saying is that we’d make more headway if we ourselves would quit refering to them as “assault weapons.” I recommend that pro-gun rights people NEVER use the term assault weapon unless they are describing a National Firearms Act type weapon.

  4. February 25th, 2009 at 09:45 | #4

    That is a good point. Perception is huge and we need to get people to stop thinking of them as “scary guns”

  5. Brad
    February 25th, 2009 at 23:46 | #5

    Carl in Chicago and clarky

    I take on the terminology issue in a comment over at snowflakesinhell. You might want to check it out…


  6. “drmoses”
    February 26th, 2009 at 19:30 | #6

    Now Eric holder is saying”mexicos gun violence is the fault of lax American Gun laws and our possession of so called Assault weapons.” Poppy Cock! You can not buy fully automatic weapons and 79 mic mic grenades at Gun shows in America. Ain’t gonna happen but, the average brain dead Americanus Liberalus will believe that Turds are bon bons. these sheople need to remove their heads from their rectums and grow the hell up.

  7. re223
    February 28th, 2009 at 10:10 | #7

    Make no mistake America! These so called “assault weapons” are simply civilian semi-automatic firearms with a military look. They shoot 100% identically to many hunting rifles and average target shooting long arms. They do not and never will spray bullets that could take out multiple targets with one sweep. They are meant for taking well-placed shots, not for combat. These types of firearms have absolutely nothing to do with the crimes taking place on the Mexican boarder. You’d have to be one heck of a salesman to smuggle guns into Mexico and then try to convince the drug cartels that your semi-automatic “assault rifles” are superior to their fully automatic machine guns and explosives. If Mexicans were armed with these semi-automatic civilian arms, we wouldn’t have this boarder problem because the fight would be over in no time or there wouldn’t be a fight at all. Statistics show that since the original assault weapons ban expired in ‘04, these readily available firearms are used in a fraction of 1% of all violent crimes in the US. It’s all just another excuse for the government to strip our rights out from under us. How can they even think up such nonsense while our country is in economic turmoil?! Everyone that takes pride in their Constitution which is the foundation of our great nation, please do something about this and join the NRA today before it’s too late! They need us and we definitely need them. They are our best hope to victory.

  8. Joe k
    June 7th, 2009 at 14:16 | #8

    Why isnt my M1 carbine not listed as an Assault weapon? It is because politicans have no clue what they are talking about. Some of them have never seen an rifle period. The law is a joke. I am a cop in NY and I have seen plenty of bad guys with glocks and Smiths. The numbers of crimes commited with AKs and ARs is very limited. They are not made for criminals. They cannot be hidden on the body. It isnt the weapon of choice. If these were the weapons of choice every criminal would use them. The fact is criminals use whatever weapons they can steal. Most weapons used are stolen guns.

  9. August 22nd, 2009 at 19:11 | #9

    O.K. Guys, will someone out there write me a sample gun law that WOULD make sense and WOULD cut down on the numbers of murders being commited by kooks with automatic hardware? Please!!!

  10. Carl in Chicago
    August 23rd, 2009 at 09:08 | #10


    You want a sample gun law that WOULD reduce violence? By “making sense” do you mean this law must comply with the constitution, which states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If so, there probably is no gun law that WOULD reduce murder.

    Perhaps the most effective and constitutional way to go about reducing murder is to ensure that punishment for murderers is sure, swift, and severe enough to deter new murderers and recidivist murderers, as well as responsible family and social involvement for young people so they learn values that would prohibit them from ever deciding to murder.

  11. Elizabeth B.
    August 24th, 2009 at 11:46 | #11

    @Carl in Chicago
    Dear Carl in Chicago, The Supreme Court interprets the meaning of The Constutution. ie only property owners were expected to vote in the olden days when our nation was new - no mention of women. The court might someday interpret what kind of “arms” we are allowed to carry. Raising some young people to be responsible takes such a long time. Even the old Greek philosophers complained about the dreadful new generations of young people. Lucky there ARE so many good families or else we would all live in chaos. Can’t you think of any legislation that would bring peace to our hoods and our campuses that would be acceptable?

  12. Carl in Chicago
    August 24th, 2009 at 12:14 | #12

    Hi Elizabeth:

    Yes. The Supreme Court has already begun a “test” for what arms are protected. It revolves around those in common use for lawful purposes. So that test would protect common handguns, shotguns, rifles, including semiauto firearms (they are certainly in common use). Perhaps if jurisprudence finally develops the militia aspect of the right to arms (certainly one of the important purposes) then we will have to deal with regular military small arms (select fire rifles, etc.). They are currently legal to own (given federal registration) in at least 40 states, but 1986 legislation made the prohibitively expensive.

    Bringing peace to our hoods. That would be wonderful. But I suspect no amount of arms restrictions will bring peace to the hoods. Some of the most violent areas already have draconian gun control, including total bans. Also, there are some 20,000 plus federal, state, and local regulations regarding arms. It always befuddles me that some feel that more will somehow reduce crime. Something new needs to be tried (or something old … eliminating criminals).

    Considering all the regulations on arms and their use now, can you think of any new legislation that would reduce crime and not offend the individual right to arms? Honestly … I cannot.

  13. Carl in Chicago
    August 24th, 2009 at 12:18 | #13


    Do you think it a correct premise or assumption that gun control equals crime control? That seems to be a very commonly held assumption, but one that I suspect is false, or at least false much of the time. It is very sad that most of the high-profile “gun violence prevention” groups are simply a front for gun control. They perpetuate this arguably false premise simply out of their own survival interests.

  14. August 27th, 2009 at 09:52 | #14

    Carl and Elizabeth,
    The biggest problem with thinking that gun control laws will stop crime is you are assuming that a criminal will obey the law. That doesn’t make much sense does it. You have a guy that is willing to commit murder, but you somehow think that if there is a law against guns that guy will obey it? If you outlaw guns then only criminals will have them. If you allow everyone the right to have a gun, then the criminals have something to be scared of.

  15. jeff
    November 13th, 2009 at 14:14 | #15

    I think there should not be a ban on the weapons, but I believe there should be a way to limit the purchase of “assualt weapons”. It should be, that to own a semi-auto, you’d need a “assualt weapons” lisence.
    I’m a US Soldier, and I plan on buying a P-308 (AR-15, but has a .308 receiver, collapsable stock)

  16. November 15th, 2009 at 22:05 | #16

    I thank you very much for serving our country jeff, but I have a .22 that is semi-auto. it seems awful silly for me to need a license to own what is little more than a BB gun. also, the real point is that there is simply no way of keeping guns away from people who wish to do harm with them. If they plan on breaking the law, they aren’t going to go get the license. they are just going to get the gun on the black market. no reason to make law abiding citizens like you and I go through even more hassle.

  17. May 18th, 2010 at 16:33 | #17

    Thank you Derek for your common sense approach on the matter. The national firearms act of 1934 banned civilian ownership of full-auto (machine guns)unless you pay the $200 transfers tax, fingerprint background check with the FBI and register the weapon with BATF. The assault weapons ban was only a cosmetic ban relating to any semi-automatic with two features: 1. Grendade launcher 2. Folding stock 3. Pistol grip 4. Flash Suppressor and 5. Bayonet mount
    None of these features increase the firepower of a weapon, yet was the main feature of the ban. All the manufacturer had to do was drop of the features to “one only” and it is a legal gun to own. Fact no. 1 is that no military force uses a so-called assault weapon. Fact no. 2 is these semi-auto’s are used in less then 2% of gun crime. Fact no. 3 is that they shoot the same as semi-auto hunting rifles. When the press was showing footage of assault weapons being fired on video during the 1994 vote, they incorrectly showed full-auto guns being used. This was the biggest fraud ever done by the media. So called assault weapons only SHOOT ONE SHOOT FOR EVERY PULL ON THE TRIGGER PERIOD. I hope this clears up the confusion on the part of the factless national media.

  18. Daniel Mason
    October 31st, 2010 at 16:11 | #18

    I disagree with this article. I believe we should put a ban on sem-automatic weapons and put an end to crimes commited with guns. Yes, all crime wont vanish BUT we wont have as much crime. Assault weapons were made to kill, end of story!!!

  19. Kayne Gurney
    January 10th, 2011 at 18:03 | #19

    Are you serious man? Just because you ban the guns does not mean criminals will won’t find a way of getting them. its idiotic people like you who get elected and then you pass laws preventing the average joe from own a very useful self defense utility. California is a prime example, The 2000 gun ban and the 1989 gun ban increased the crime rate and murder rate in CA by over 38%. Now you tell me if your willing to allow that to happen in your home town or your kids’ hometown hmm?
    Just because you ban legal people doesn’t ensure that it will eliminate criminals… gosh people these days

  20. james
    March 7th, 2011 at 13:15 | #20

    its not just CA everywhere you go there are weapons and anything you do there will alawys be. weather its your hometown or mine there is nothing you can do to change it.

  21. Raul Duke
    November 6th, 2011 at 23:39 | #21

    First an Assault Rifle is a rifle with selctive fire including: Full Auto, 3 round burst, and semi-auto. So how many of you typical gun owners has a gun that fits this description. REAL Assault Rifles are very expensive, difficult to aquire, and most of all EASY to track. So given these parameters would a criminal even a very rich or very stupid criminal even try to buy a AW from a gun dealer or gun show?

  22. John Cornett
    February 8th, 2012 at 14:28 | #22

    Unfortunately, gun control is in effect in very deceptive, sinister ways…and not just on assualt weapons. Take the Leutenberg ammendment concerning domestic violence. Under this ammendment, a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence ensures you are never again legally permitted to own a firearm. It may sound somewhat reasonable at first glance, but let’s define what the police and judges constitute as assualt. If you are in a shouting match with your wife/significant other and the police are called, they either have to make an arrest or go through the considerable trouble explaining why they didn’t…they are going to make an arrest. The DA IS going to prosecute…guaranteed…they have to, and they will get a conviction. Assualt can be something as simple as stepping towards someone making them step backwards…or they just felt scared. Of course, all they have to do is say this and you will be arrested and stripped of your rights as an American citizen. Frankly I don’t believe that even convicted felons should have their rights stripped if they have paid for their crime in full…otherwise, they are still seen as a criminal. They are Americans and have inalienable rights…including the right to protect themselves. There shall be NO LAWS infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms…PERIOD! Anything short of this is tyranny in my honest opinion.

  23. Aaron Smith
    March 6th, 2012 at 11:56 | #23

    @Elizabeth B.

    All citizens of age and no criminal record may now openly carry firearms in all venues except courtrooms and other such places unless prohibited by propertys’ owner.

  24. Aaron Smith
    March 6th, 2012 at 12:05 | #24

    Daniel Mason :I disagree with this article. I believe we should put a ban on sem-automatic weapons and put an end to crimes commited with guns. Yes, all crime wont vanish BUT we wont have as much crime. Assault weapons were made to kill, end of story!!!

    The problem with your assumption is that in cases where countries have banned guns gun crimes rise upwards of 300%. Australia and New Zeland(Excuse the spelling) are good examples.

    Hitler banned guns as well, I guess he was a good guy who just wanted to stop the violence. You must disarm your citezens in order to establish tyranny.

    Perhaps we should ban political speech as well. That leads to violence. Cars cause more deaths than guns they should be banned as well.

  25. Aaron Smith
    March 6th, 2012 at 12:07 | #25

    Just for kicks: Define assault weapon. I always thought that being hit with a .233 at 2900fps would hurt even if the rifle didn’t have a bayonette stud.

  26. Kevin
    October 19th, 2012 at 14:13 | #26

    You are a moron! First, if a weapon is not being used for hunting or target shooting, it can be considered a assult weapon whether it’s a hand gun, shot gun, musket or any device that shoots a prjectile out the end of a barrell.@Raul Duke

  27. Matt
    November 1st, 2012 at 01:48 | #27

    I don’t need to point out to most of you (the ones that certainly seem to have their head on straight anyway.) that this was a point about the idiocy on a “assault weapons ban”,is that the ban? it didn’t work. Gun control laws (there are some decent ones, such as felons not being able to buy firearms legally in most cases is a good control. -some felons can petition for that right back-) look at chicago, the handgun ban was repealed, violent crime dropped an insane amount, almost over night.
    How many crimes were committed with a legal firearm last year? less than a 100 (that is the entire country), done with illegally owned firearms? 533,470. number of those violent crimes done with a ‘assault weapon’? 113.
    Times a legally owned firearm was used to prevent or stop a crime?
    over 2.5 million.

    Sigmund Freud:”A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”

    “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 (now wait… wasn’t Gandi a fan of non-violent rebellion?)

    Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
    – From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

    Please do research before you throw some dribble on my shoes and call it an argument.

  28. Don
    November 14th, 2012 at 00:00 | #28

    CRIME CONTROL NOT GUN CONTROL. I must say, growing up in a third world country where civilians have no weapons…BAD GUYS ALWAYS FINDS A WAY. So, the government can BAN all they want, the bad guys don’t go to the gunstores…they go to the black markets for your so-called “Assult” Weapons. The banning and restrictions of weapons only lead to one thing, tyranny and oppression. Why you say? Look at third world countries. Who has weapons? Government and Terrorists. What about the people? nothing. What happends? Government is corrupt, Terrorists are trigger happy, and civilians die. The writers of the constitution knew this pattern and given the citizens of this country that right so that we would never be in the same mess that has been repeated over mankind’s history. And on the issues of mass shootings, if a man walks in a room full of un-armed people and started shooting vs the same man walks in a room with the same amount of people but half of them are armed which would have more casualties? Now here’s the big arguement…if the guns were banned the shooter would not have the gun in the first place-WRONG once again, if someone plans something and is set to go out and do it, he will find the weapon regardless of laws. sorry for long rambling, I just find it sad that I moved from a place of oppression by governments and rebels at war to only find that my homeland is heading the same direction.

  29. Diane Borrelli
    December 22nd, 2012 at 14:40 | #29

    They kill themselves So now what
    Other countries have armed civilian Like Switzerland They are all trained and all required to serve 2 year in the military which means that they have all had psych clearance. We have undiagnosed nut cases getting anything they want. A shoutout in a crowded theater or mall would do what?
    @Carl in Chicago

  30. Dawn
    December 31st, 2012 at 13:44 | #30

    Remember that is against the law for a felon to possess a gun or ammo…does this stop them?? No it does not!!

  31. Dawn
    December 31st, 2012 at 13:45 | #31

    I like this analogy….”The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20.” ~Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)
    AAAnnndd this one!…”This year will go down in history. 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 into the future!” ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

  32. David
    January 6th, 2013 at 09:04 | #32

    With gun laws we protect the criminal , not the public Who’s side are we on ?

  33. Barry
    January 8th, 2013 at 17:48 | #33

    The kid that did the unthinkable at Sandy-hook… was mentally troubled
    The guy in Colorado at the movie theater, was seeing a psychiatrist
    The guy in Seattle the Racer Cafe shootings… friends and family said he was mentally disturbed.
    The kid in the Mall shootings in Portland OR…. Said to have psychological problems.

    All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing… I just wish one of these people would have stood up and said something before the tragedy. None of these shooters cared about the law, nor the penalty for doing the crime, as most of them committed suicide anyway. Now is the time to take a serious look at mental illness in our country, not new gun laws.

  34. boner
    January 16th, 2013 at 16:23 | #34

    PENIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8========> ballsack

  35. January 20th, 2013 at 23:52 | #35

    Hello there! Do you know if they make any plugins to protect against hackers?
    I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard
    on. Any tips?

  36. January 25th, 2013 at 22:08 | #36

    A very fine series, indeed. The Feinstein,Obama-Biden-Holder championed proposed federal “Assault Weapons” Ban of 2013 is far more than a joke. It is the most pernicious assault on the Bill of Rights — the first ten amendments to the USA Constitution — since Woodrow Wilson’s draconian suspention of civil rights during World War One. But as dangerous as this proposal is to the rights assured in, and twice adjudicated in this century as being quite constitutional; the true magnitude of this clear unconstitutional proposal is only a portent to the foreboding and likely catastrophic effect it will have on the entire standard of balance of power between the state and its people. To better understand the validity of this observation, one need only ponder the fact that these four (4) individuals of the nation’s elite class are engaged in an organized strategic reorganization of the entire American life environment. In other words, we are witnessing the rape of not a single liberty, but liberties all; liberties expressly recognized as unalinable. Liberties not granted by the state, but by God Almighty even before birth. This is change via first fiat, then threat, followed by collapse of the floor of freedom. These four (4) elites have, in effect, fired the first vollies of what will be judged as the beginning of a second civil war; this one not to free slaves, rather the entire population of the nation. And the band of four have chosen the classic tactic of first introducing a pronounced fear (guns), then declaring a significant minority (gun owners) as demegogues, then scapegoats for very rare occurances of gun violence, with a finale of war-like social violence against first the minority and then the entire boatload of citizenry. To better inauguate this campaign, the aggressors must first direct the majority to come to hate a minority of the minority — the National Rifle Association — in order from this activity to morph hate into fear. From there it is relitively easy to escalate the new mind-set of the majority to hostilities. THIS is what is REALLY now extant. A conglomulation of the leftest media, religious organizations, metroes and urbanites, educators, and the party faithful — Democrats — is then blended, everyone is given their marching orders, and then the war begins. Projectiles of misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies are what will befall innnocent, law-abiding gun owners with little manner to defend themselves from salvo after solvo of verbal, print, and broadcast assaults on their person. One need only to tune in to CNN, or msnbc to see and hear the rabid attacks upon anyone who in any way deviates from the battle plan. “Hosts” like msnbc’s Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Melissa Harris-Perry, Alex Witt, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton; and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, and the insufferable-par-excellence Piers Morgan — who barades guests to whom he invites from “the other side” with an unending barrage of words and platatudes, rarely giving any of them the opportunity to render a complete sentence let alone a complete thought — one who advocates disarming the entire civilian law-abiding population, and who is not even an American citizen! The montra of all those supporting outlawing 157 specific firearms is, “Nobody is trying to take Your guns.” REALLY? These slim-balls would “permit” hunters and sportsmen to keep their firearms, but to Hell with everybody else. It is rarely mentioned by folks under attack by these “journalists” that the 2nd Amendment was not codified to “permit” hunters to bring home dead deer and ducks for dinner. The 2nd Amendment is specifically designed to allow Joe/Jane Public to lawfully defend themselves from all manner of attenpted assaults even unto death; and that includes those who ARE attempting to take their guns. By “permitting” “hunters and sportsmen” to keep their firearms, those who are promoting disarming everybody else, these political thugs are attempting to ban firearms that do not even exist. The BTAFE does NOT recognize the “term” “assault weapons.” Neither do they recognize the term “semi-automatic assault weapons.” To put it bluntly, “There ain’t no such thing as an ‘assault weapon’” PERIOD! These ignorant people deal with a class of firearms that don’t even exist. There ARE assault rifles, and carbines, and handguns; but to fit this nomer they MUST be either full-automatic, or selective automatic. And dispite what the anti-gunners would have everybody to believe, none of those firearms are “high-powered.” They in fact make use of an “intermediate-power” class of ammunition, or in the case of handguns, pistol ammunition. This writer knows of only two (2) personal automatic long guns now used by the American armed forces that are “high power”; the 7.62mm (NATO) M-14 battle rifle, and the AR-10 also in 7.62mm NATO. And, unless the owner-user is granted a federal Class C permit, it is unlawful to possess ANY full or select-fire weapon. So we can see that the people behind this stupid bill do not know of what they speak — BIG TIME — and thus the entire bill should rightly go down in flames. And even after two recent Supreme Court decissions that clearly put to rest the argument that the 2nd Amendment is all about arming a militia is just not so. The court clearly articulated the PERSONAL RIGHT to own and use firearms, and has nothing to do with a militia today, OR the slippery-slopped argument that today’s “militia” is in fact the National Guard. Once again. . . it just ain’t so! So to conclude, the bottom line to all of this gun banning is that even in the unlikely case that the bill passed both branches of Congress, and then was signed into law by the president; dispite all the wasted time, effort, and tax-payer monies to foot the billing for this comedy, the new “law” would quickly face federal court actions all the way up to the Supreme Court, which is almost certain to strike it down as being unconstitutional. So for those of us who would very much like to keep enjoying our “semi-automatic assault weapons,” perhaps this activity will finally secure the fact that the 2nd Amendment says what it means, and means what it says! BJG. 01.25.13

  37. February 4th, 2013 at 14:30 | #37

    Since so many weapons continued to be sold because they merely have been renamed. couldn’t effective legislation banning this trick, be effective?

    Currently we are trying to crack down on numerous cheap imitations of designer products produced by countries like China. Surely, if we can devote the time and energy required to end this type of consumer fraud, we could do something similar with semi-automatics.

    If we can isolate possible terrorist’s threats out of billions of bits in data traveling rapidly between continents and identify those that are possibly related to terrorism, surely we can specifically list all of the way used to alter or rename weapons to continue their sale, and ban such deceptive marketing. Why not?