Assault rifle ban will fail without objective definitions because...

The only thing another "Assault Weapon Ban" will accomplish is to once again increase the number of so called "Assault Weapons" in the hands of the public. The direct cause of the AR-15 experiencing a massive boom in popularity and manufacturing was that it was banned. Americans do not like being told they may not own a thing, or that a movie or book is banned, things of this nature. They always react to challenge PROHIBITION, as happened with alcohol and marijuana.

Once you focus public attention, they have an opportunity to learn the good and bad points of a thing. In the case of the "Armalite Rifle" gun buyers discovered its adaptability to most any shooting sport or use. An enormous industry sprung up.where previously there was none. The designs advanced, improved and diversified to encompass many calibers and applications.

Today the AR-15 pattern rifle is the single most successful and popular in American history. Some owners have more than one, in different configurations for different uses.

Try to ban them again and see what happens. Tell the law abiding public once again they cannot have the very thing they have never hurt anybody with and they not only will not comply but they will actively work to find weaknesses in the law and to overturn that law.

The Law of Unintended Consequences folks, it made the AR-15 what it is today!

 

Well said.

 

Another of those that know didly about fire arms making generalized proclamations; when I was 8 years old, 56 years ago I was given a 1950’s J.C.Higgins bolt action with a tubular mag the held 17 rnds of .22lr or 21 rnds of .22 long or .25 rnds of .22 short. Really dangerous, eh? I’ve owned a lot of .22s; I don’t think any had a capacity less than 10 rnds. Real terrorist guns, eh? A real assault rifle, eh? Yeah, the bunnies and squirrels probably would agree.
Yeah, you have credibility.

 

To be sure, CourtJester. Since Karl Marx wrote, "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary," the contention that Marxism stands opposed to gun ownership is erroneous. ( Quote excerpted from Dr. Marx's "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League," 1850.)



That said, I am a Marxist and a handgun and reloading enthusiast. As such, it always amuses me to read or hear such ramblings from the political Right. Although I do not make a fetish of revolutionary violence any more than I am a pacifist, I know that maintaining the right to possess firearms is essential toward defending workers against armed forces of political reaction. One need only understand the fate that befell Spain's unarmed Marxian socialists under Franco to comprehend that point.

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)

Former member:
California Republican Party (1976-1982)