The Problem with an "Assault Weapon" Ban

[jwoodie]

is that it would give a Federal Bureaucracy (probably ATF) the discretion to define this nebulous term in any way it desires without Congressional approval. Just as the EPA has taken upon itself the power to regulate CO2 emissions, the ATF could decide at some later date that anything other than single shot rifles are "assault weapons" which can be regulated by them. I am not a gun nut or NRA member, but I am aware that 90% of federal law is in regulations rather than in legislative statutes. Giving discretionary authority to governmental agencies is almost never a good idea.

 

[SniperFire]

If one is being assaulted with a toaster, the toaster would be an 'assault weapon. '

 

[deltex1]

How about one of these??




XM-25,
Perhaps the most innovative small arm of recent years is the XM-25 "Punisher" 25-mm grenade launcher. A laser measures the range to the target, so the grenade can be set to explode midair at the exact point it passes over a foxhole or a wall to target enemies behind cover. Five weapons were issued in Afghanistan on a trial basis in 2010 and they have had good reports. However, the XM25's estimated cost of over $30,000 may prove to be something of a limitation for now.

 

[beretta304]

Lets cut the bullshit. It isn't about assault weapons per se. It's about the left wanting a ban on them to use as a platform to get all guns eventually banned and hop on the bandwagon with the U.N.

Ever meet a leftwing liberal who didn't know what's best for you but doesn't want it applied to them?

 

[Jarlaxle]

is that it would give a Federal Bureaucracy (probably ATF) the discretion to define this nebulous term in any way it desires without Congressional approval. Just as the EPA has taken upon itself the power to regulate CO2 emissions, the ATF could decide at some later date that anything other than single shot rifles are "assault weapons" which can be regulated by them. I am not a gun nut or NRA member, but I am aware that 90% of federal law is in regulations rather than in legislative statutes. Giving discretionary authority to governmental agencies is almost never a good idea.

F-troop is already doing that! Look at the ban on so-called "armor-piercing pistol ammunition".

 

[tjvh]

The Problem with an "Assault Weapon" Ban ???? That the term assault weapon is an imaginary term invented by gun control advocates. Let's be clear... It's pretty difficult to ban imaginary inanimate objects that apparently scare some very irrational people.

 

[Lakhota]

What you radical NRA NaziCon gun nuts fail to consider is that many of us, both left and right, are also gun lovers - but we believe in "sensible" gun control. We worry that you radical nuts will cost all of us our "reasonable" gun rights with your uncompromising never-give-an-inch mentality.

 

[P@triot]

What you radical NRA NaziCon gun nuts fail to consider is that many of us, both left and right, are also gun lovers - but we believe in "sensible" gun control. We worry that you radical nuts will cost all of us our "reasonable" gun rights with your uncompromising never-give-an-inch mentality.

You guys always spout this nonsense, but with zero examples.

We already have "sensible gun control". With each and every firearm I have ever purchased, I've had a full background check by the F.B.I.

Let me repeat that, just in case that hasn't sunk in yet for any idiot liberals out there. With each and every firearm I have ever purchased, I've had a full background check by the F.B.I.

If a background check by the nation's highest (and most well funded) law enforcement agency is not enough, what is?!?

 

[P@triot]

 

[kyzr]

I'm impressed with the "hands, fists, feet" method. Actually much more effective than assault weapons...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Is any weapon not an "assault" weapon?

 

[Missourian]

Their masters have ordered them to demand another AWB, and by God, who are they to go around thinking for themselves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

is that it would give a Federal Bureaucracy (probably ATF) the discretion to define this nebulous term in any way it desires without Congressional approval. Just as the EPA has taken upon itself the power to regulate CO2 emissions, the ATF could decide at some later date that anything other than single shot rifles are "assault weapons" which can be regulated by them. I am not a gun nut or NRA member, but I am aware that 90% of federal law is in regulations rather than in legislative statutes. Giving discretionary authority to governmental agencies is almost never a good idea.

Incorrect.

Earlier this year U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia ruled in favor of the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act with regard to CO2 emissions. The EPA took nothing ‘upon itself.’

As with the EPA, so too can the ATF, or any other Federal agency, have its policies subject to judicial review. A new ‘AWB’ would need to specify what exactly constitutes an ‘assault weapon,’ and both a new law or the way the ATF interprets a new law can be challenged in Federal court.

Opposition to a new ‘AWB’ shouldn’t be based on the notion of the scary Federal government taking away your guns – it should be based on the fact that a new ban simply won’t work, just as the last one didn’t work.

That’s the problem with an assault weapon ban.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What you radical NRA NaziCon gun nuts fail to consider is that many of us, both left and right, are also gun lovers - but we believe in "sensible" gun control. We worry that you radical nuts will cost all of us our "reasonable" gun rights with your uncompromising never-give-an-inch mentality.

There is a problem with that post. The problem being, Shitting Bull, that you are LYING.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you radical NRA NaziCon gun nuts fail to consider is that many of us, both left and right, are also gun lovers - but we believe in "sensible" gun control. We worry that you radical nuts will cost all of us our "reasonable" gun rights with your uncompromising never-give-an-inch mentality.

It is strange how many anti gun nits claim to love guns. Personally, all I love is freedom, I would much prefer a world that did not need guns. Since we don't live in that world, I won't pretend we do. even if we did, I would still support the right of anyone to own any weapon they can actually carry.

 

[uscitizen]

is that it would give a Federal Bureaucracy (probably ATF) the discretion to define this nebulous term in any way it desires without Congressional approval. Just as the EPA has taken upon itself the power to regulate CO2 emissions, the ATF could decide at some later date that anything other than single shot rifles are "assault weapons" which can be regulated by them. I am not a gun nut or NRA member, but I am aware that 90% of federal law is in regulations rather than in legislative statutes. Giving discretionary authority to governmental agencies is almost never a good idea.

somehow we survived it before.
And then the economy went south after Bush let it expire.

 

[The Rabbi]

is that it would give a Federal Bureaucracy (probably ATF) the discretion to define this nebulous term in any way it desires without Congressional approval. Just as the EPA has taken upon itself the power to regulate CO2 emissions, the ATF could decide at some later date that anything other than single shot rifles are "assault weapons" which can be regulated by them. I am not a gun nut or NRA member, but I am aware that 90% of federal law is in regulations rather than in legislative statutes. Giving discretionary authority to governmental agencies is almost never a good idea.

somehow we survived it before.
And then the economy went south after Bush let it expire.

The ban expired in 2004 and the economy "went south" starting 2008.
Fail.

 

[P@triot]

What you radical NRA NaziCon gun nuts fail to consider is that many of us, both left and right, are also gun lovers - but we believe in "sensible" gun control. We worry that you radical nuts will cost all of us our "reasonable" gun rights with your uncompromising never-give-an-inch mentality.

It is strange how many anti gun nits claim to love guns. Personally, all I love is freedom, I would much prefer a world that did not need guns. Since we don't live in that world, I won't pretend we do. even if we did, I would still support the right of anyone to own any weapon they can actually carry.

What you radical NRA NaziCon gun nuts fail to consider is that many of us, both left and right, are also gun lovers - but we believe in "sensible" gun control. We worry that you radical nuts will cost all of us our "reasonable" gun rights with your uncompromising never-give-an-inch mentality.

It is strange how many anti gun nits claim to love guns. Personally, all I love is freedom, I would much prefer a world that did not need guns. Since we don't live in that world, I won't pretend we do. even if we did, I would still support the right of anyone to own any weapon they can actually carry.

Additionally, isn't it strange how the anti-gun nuts whail and scream when a child is shot, yet celebrate the "right" to slaughter babies still inside of the mother by the millions?

I think that is overwhelming evidence that the gun issues is just about control for liberals (like everything else with them) and nothing to do with preserving human life.