The so called "assault weapons" ban passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton was, for the most part, a complete joke. The true "Assault Rifle" are fully-automatic and carry the classification of a Class 3 weapon. (not available to the general public and have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934) The Assault weapon ban refers primarily to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle. Under the " Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", having the "cosmetic" features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. The firearm was still semi-automatic, had the same rate of fire, used the same type of ammo. Disallowed were folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips, Bayonet mounts, Flash suppressor (or threaded barrel to accommodate one), and Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades). So the only effect of the ban was to make the weapon "look" less menacing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence" The National Research Council panel noted that studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...." The United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crime. A study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. Oh.... and by the way....There is no "Gun show Loophole" !!!
For all intents and purposes there isn't one. But that never stopped the anti gun sheeple from trying to solve a "problem" that doesn't exist.
Connecticut already had one of the nation's most restrictive gun laws. They already had a law against assault weapons. He didn't bother to address my question about why that wasn't sufficient. We all know what will happen. More bans will have no discernible effect. Then the next outrage that occurs, they will say see, we need to go further. Confiscate guns, etc. That is why it is so crucial that anyone who values owning any gun makes it clear to their representatives that no compromise is acceptable here. Who do you want to be deciding what kind of gun you can own or if you can own one at all? Yourself or some politician or gun control fanatic?
The so called gun loop hole â as it is in Texas (canât speak for other states) Two private citizens attend a gun show â one with a weapon sellâ¦, one wanting to purchase a weapon They can make said transaction with out going through an FFL â no different than any other transaction between two private individuals ====================== No way a dealer can/ will sell to an individual unless the paperwork is completed.., and a background check conducted (through the national database) If the individual has a CCW, then the background check is waived⦠but never the paperwork Some fân loop hole RN
500 murdered in Chicago this year. Couple of things to note. High as that number is, it isn't a record. It is illegal to carry a gun in the city of Chicago. It is illegal to sell a gun in the city of Chicago. The city is considered to be a gun free zone. They put up a sign, passed an ordinance and everything. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...icide-toll-20121228,0,5456581.story?track=rss
We see that legal gun ownership is not the problem. Criminals are the problem. A weak court system is the problem. A breakdown in the family structure is a problem. The hysterical reaction of the gun control zealots is mis-directed towards an easy target which will not do a thing to stop the violence. Personally I don't see the need to own a semi-automatic weapon. I don't own a gun at all. I don't hunt, nor do I feel owning a gun would make me safer. That's just my opinion. However, the right to own a weapon is at the core of who we are as a nation. While I currently do not own a weapon and have no intentions of making a purchase, if forced I would once again pick up a weapon to defend the right we have to own one. Powers that be, be on notice. While I am firmly in the non-violent, let's work things out peacefully camp, I'm no pacifist. There are many like me. Think on that before you make your next move.
Less felt recoil and quick follow up shot(s). With a semi auto it's easier to keep the weapon on target after each shot because you don't have to cycle the action. I harvested six white tail deer years ago with my Spring Field Armory M1A. I never carried 20 rounds in the mag though.