Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/1/2004 5:09:42 PM EST
Hi I'm a 15 year old sophomore in highschool. I also hold strong libertarian beliefs and support the right to right to bear arms. Anyways yesterday in my AP US history class, we had a debate regarding the assault rifle ban. My teacher of course, in all his "wisdom" questioned the purpose of assault rifles in our society and thought the ban helped to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the public. Just about everyone in the class of course, licked every single thing he said all up. I asked him how the ban kept dangerous weapons out of the hands of the citizenry when existing weapons unaffected by then ban are almost or just as dangerous as the assault rifles. He then said that because of their design, most assault rifles can be easily converted to have fully automatic capability.

My questions are:

1. can these assault rifles be that easily converted to have full auto capability?

2. if so, can't criminals just convert semi auto assault rifles and use them?

3. what reasons can I give my teacher for lifting the ban? (don't say they're fun to shoot, or they're cool because he won't buy that.)


I want some real answers here, not "your teacher is *T^@&^" or anything of that sort. The next debate is on monday and I want to score a point for our side.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:16:21 PM EST
Ask your teacher to tell the class what features make a firearm an 'assault weapon'. Watch him studder unable to answer the question and look like an Asshat.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:21:39 PM EST
DU ?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:23:57 PM EST
also ask him how to convert them, if it's so easy
some guns are easy, just kind of certain areas of parts of the fire control system with a dremel tool. others are harder
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:25:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:26:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:28:06 PM EST
Ask him does he know someone who converts will get 10 years in the pokey. Askhim if he knows there are millions of prebans around with the same internals and none of these were converted.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:28:18 PM EST
Ask him if the term "Shall not infringe" means anything to him.

Then explain the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do about hunting.

SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:28:58 PM EST

My questions are:

1. can these assault rifles be that easily converted to have full auto capability?

Many rifles can be converted, besides the so-called "assault weapons". It's illegal, and does take some knowledge


2. if so, can't criminals just convert semi auto assault rifles and use them?


Yes, but criminals can just buy or steal fully automatic machineguns anyway. The gun of choice for most criminals is a handgun, since it's concealable


3. what reasons can I give my teacher for lifting the ban? (don't say they're fun to shoot, or they're cool because he won't buy that.)


The 2nd Amendment guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It doesn't distinguish what kind. When written, you could get state of the art weaponry. Yes, they are fun to shoot. They are great self defense weapons, they are great Homeland Security weapons.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:29:10 PM EST
Ask him how exactly a LAW is going to stop the people he posits will BREAK THE LAW?
Explain to him that excepting bayonet lugs and a few other minor features, that nearly-identical weapons REMAINED available throughout the 10years of the AWB - where waw the imagined onslaught of ILLEGAL conversion to full-auto, over those 10years? What is magic about a bayonet lug, that will now trigger an avalanche of people ILLEGALLY converting said weapons to full-auto?

Get him to understand / admit to the class that the AWB did NOTHING to reduce or inhibit the numbers or general types of semi-auto military-STYLE weapons available to the Public, except artificially inflate the price.

Get him to admit that career-criminals and desperadoes willing to seek and use a full-auto in their crimes are almost certainly ALREADY violating the law by having ANY firearm, and further violate 70yr-old legislation by creating an unregistered full-auto weapon.

Get him to explain how then does the AWB have ANYTHING to do with these behaviours?

Get him to explain how state after state that has LOOSENED gun restrictions have experienced documented DROPS in Crime and Gun-Crime? And why states and cities with the MOST restrictive firearms laws have the HIGHEST rates of violent crime and gun crime.

As him why every predicted huge outburst of OK CORRAL-ism has failed to materialize in state after state where CCW laws have been enacted, and thusly, why should anyone believe the fear-mongering predictions associated with the expiration of the AWB?

Ask him why Switzerland where nearly EVERYONE has a FULL-AUTO-capable battle rifle in their homes, has almost no gun related crime? Same for Finland, where full-auto ownership is widespread.

Ask him to explain / feh, that's enough. Research those and be able to ask follow-up questions or rebut his first-level defenses on them, and you'll be sure to get told to shut up.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:33:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 5:36:04 PM EST by leelaw]
Assault Rifles (see: machinegun) have been regulated since 1934, and have been banned from civilian manufactura since the 1980s. I think what your hyped-up Liberal POS teacher meant was "assault WEAPON ban" seeing as it was the one that expired.

I think the question you should have asked is not how it kept the firearms out of the reach of CITIZENS and should have asked how it keeps 'dangerous firearms' out of the hands of CRIMINALS (because we're trying to reduce crime, not disarm the citizens).

Ask "How would a ban keep people who generally disregard the law from aquiring these weapons?"

ETA: Be sure to ask him how he can explain the fact that since the ban expired the streets have not been colored red with the blood of the thousands of shootings a day because of these uuber dangerous firearms.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:36:14 PM EST
Welcome...

My answers are:

1. No

2. No

3. Because the constitution gaurantees me the opportunity to defend myself. The founders of this nation decided it was a good idea that citizens had the ability to advocate for themselves...the reasons that fostered that ideology are present in todays environment. What has changed however, is that revisionist liberals seem to think it is within their scope to not only challenge the constitution, but re-interpret it, and re-write it as they see fit. First of all, lets start with the language..."assault weapon"...I own an AR15.....for completely defensive purposes...it was not purchased for, nor will it be used in an attempt to "assault" anyone. That name is a title thought up by the left to scare people into thinking that these rifles are somehow more dangerous than others. If your teacher maintains that "assault rifles" are specifically easy to convert to FA....first, ask him how exactly that is accomplished....then as he muddles through that one, remind him that it is still against federal law to do that, and that class III weapons are regulated in a completely different manner......if the question is "Why do you need them"....there are many replies...may want to ask them to provide a reason which would exempt you from owning one that DOESNT infringe upon your constitutional rights....sicne they wont be able to, a more realistic answer may be, "I dont neccesarily need it......however, if a time came when I felt I did, it would be a little late to try to go find one".....if you sense that all is lost, and the debate will not be won (most likely as a result of your teachers desire to dominate the class with his socialist ideas)...close with.........."It's very simple....I came into this world screaming, covered in someone elses blood...and if need be, I will gladly go out the same way!"

Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:37:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By cnorton:
Ask your teacher to tell the class what features make a firearm an 'assault weapon'. Watch him studder unable to answer the question and look like an Asshat.



Correct.

There are many fallacies in the "assault weapons" ban argument. First, there is the argument that the banned weapons were "dangerous." Of course they were; they're guns! If guns weren't dangerous, we wouldn't have a Second Amendment!

Second, the Clinton Gun ban did not actually ban true assault weapons. You won't find many semi-automatic rifles used by armies. What were banned were semi-automatic rifles which resembled military rifles.

Third, our Founding Fathers never intended to ban military rifles. They remembered how country boys brought their Pennsylvania rifles to the Revolutionary War. Those rifles had superior range and accuracy to military rifles used by the Brits (Brown Betsys).

Fourth, the weapons banned were not commonly used in crime. Less than 3% of gun-related crimes were committed with "assault style weapons." Far more violent crimes are committed with baseball bats and golf clubs. Assault style weapons are less concealable than pistols, and many fire pistol ammunition. For example, the UZI fires a 9mm round, which the police quit using because it doesn't have adequate stopping power. The Thompson submachine gun fires .45 ACP ammunition, commonly used in 1911A-1 pistols. AK-47s fire a more powerful round, but their 7.62X39 round is far less powerful than those used in more traditional military rifles, such as the Enfield, Garand, or the Mosin Nagant. So-called assault-style rifles also have less range and accuracy than bolt action rifles. So, the family of weapons banned by Clinton was actually less lethal than others. That may be why they were chosen. Once, "assault style weapons" are banned, there can be arguments that bolt action rifles should be banned, because of their power and accuracy. After all, President Kennedy was assasinated by one (3 shots fired in just moments). Shotguns are banned by the Geneva Convention, so how should they escape a gun ban? Then again, pistols are easily concealed and discharge rounds commonly used by assault weapons, so they would have to be banned, too. What's left?

Finally, gun control has never worked. It has produced two ills: (1) Government tyranny, and (2) higher violent crime rates. Our own Justice Department estimates that firearms are used 5 times more often in self defense than crime.

Good luck!
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:38:37 PM EST
Accurate semi-auto fire is much more lethal than spray-and-pray full auto, anyway.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:42:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 5:52:48 PM EST by another_shooter]
Here is a nice place to start for general information:AW Sunset

3. If your teacher is a believer in the constitution and it's amendments, then he must recognize that the 2nd amendment was not designed for hunters, but instead for personal freedom against tyranny, whether by criminals or by the government. As you know, both the government and criminals will have such weapons (or worse). Thus, the AWB violates the spirit of the constitution of the United States, a point to which your history teacher seems to be oblivious. Your history teacher is letting his personal biases influence his perception of history. Not good.

2. As you know, criminals live outside the law. Not only can criminals convert to full auto, but they could probably simply acquire full auto. Given this, it may even be reasonable for laws aimed at limiting full auto be lifted, but we needn't go there.

1. Realize this, the AWB did not ban all semi-autoloaders. For example, the mini-14. The trigger in this gun could be converted to full auto, and yet this gun was not controlled by the AWB. Therefore, the trigger conversion phobia (often proclaimed by supporters of the AWB) is actually a red herring.

The AWB was simply an ill-conceived, emotionally-driven act to ban things that seemed to be scary. Although this does not seem like a totally bad idea, you are really harming a law-abiding segment of the population by lessening their defense capabilities (ie., the middle class that can't afford body guards). You are also limiting contributions that the civilian population can make to military; not only in providing young people with experience dealinig with such weapons but also in actual advancements and weaponry. We have only to look at how Barrett 50 bmg are now being used by the military.

Make no mistake, the AWB comes from a segment of our society that would like to see all firearms in the hands of the government and all power in the hands of the government.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:42:51 PM EST
The Second Ammendment is about maintaining military style weapons in the hands of the citizens of this nation.

Do a little research on US vs. Miller. The decison that lead to the National Firearms Act of 1934 specfically upheld that concept. "Miller" ruled that short barreled shotguns were not "suitable" for military use and could be regulated.

Everything else we have to deal with came from interpeting that decision that lead us down this road of "resonable restrictions".

The fact that "Assault Weapons" are semi-auto is more laughable because the military wouldn't use them for a first line weapon.

The "AWB" was about further conditioning the sheeple into accecpting more restrictions as "just the way it's always been".

The Second is about providing a ballance to .gov, a "System Reset" if you will. The Founding Fathers just fought their way out from under a repressive government and wanted to leave us with the tools to make sure it didn't happen again.

For those that bring up that the Army could stop any "uprising", remember that the FF's warned against the dangers of a standing Army. They KNEW that we could end up in the situation we find ourselves in now.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:47:59 PM EST
take in a strong mixed drink and towards the end of class tell him he's as dumb as a box of moldy shit.......................*

*this may or may not be good advice but probably what i would have done
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:50:18 PM EST
your teacher is a douchebag. why should "dangeroud weapons" be kept out of the hands of "the public"? criminals yes (even tho its impossible) the public as a whole, no.


about the only thing that is EASILY converted to full auto are the old open bolt semi auto Mac 10's and KG-9 (original tec 9) and other open bolt semi autos. further manufature of those was stopped by the ATF in the early 80s, but the ones already on the market were grandfathered. these could be converted by filing off part of the disconnector i believe. I'm pretty sure the open bolt semi MAC 10 could be fired on full auto by putting a magnet (or something else) behind the trigger so it doesnt go back all the way. These have nothing to do with the sunset of the AWB, they will never be made again, any new ones would be considered Machine guns by the ATF and very illegal.


stuff like AK's and ARs can be converted, but it takes a bunch of parts that are hard to get and access to a machine shop and really knowing what you are doing, or a part that is considered a machine gun by itself (DIAS for AR-15s)
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:50:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By 87gn:
Accurate semi-auto fire is much more lethal than spray-and-pray full auto, anyway.



actually this is another good point......................go through lumpys pics for gun nuts threads and look at the guns our boys in camo are using.......................you'll notice that most guns where the selector switch is visible is set to "semi-auto" mode. this will make an excellent visual aid. i.e. our boys in kevlar have the option of full auto fire and still use semi-auto fire for controlled, aimed fire.........................
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:58:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 5:59:21 PM EST by Greenhorn]
One thing you should mention is that any criminal who actually wants to hit something will use a semi-automatic gun. Full-auto is good for lots of noise, but no good for accurate shooting.

Also ask why there has, as far as I know, only been one single crime commited by a FA gun (the LA shootings), and that did not result in any deaths other than the perps.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:02:32 PM EST



Damm, I Aced the Assualt Weapons Challenge on that gun site thread that HeavyMetal posted.

Can you? It does have alot of good info for a rookie.


Okay after side tracking there. The AWB of 1994 did nothing to criminals. It just punished law abidding citizens.


If a criminal or terriost wanted a full auto assualt weapon. They would bring them into our country just like the drug lords bring drugs in every single day accross the boarder..


If liberal Dems want to get tough on gun crimes. Then just pass a "ONE STRIKE AND YOUR OUT LAW" for using any type of weapon in a felony crime. I would be glad to support a ONE STRIKE and YOUR OUT GUN LAW.

I'm sure everyone else would too.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:21:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:24:50 PM EST
Bought my first AR15 (ahem) "assault rifle" 3 years ago. Legally. While the ban was in full effect. In ILLINOIS, of all places.

So, consitutional questions aside, the '94 ban was a completely useless piece of legislation aimed only at incrementally disarming the citizens of the U.S., a tiny piece at a time.

Feel-good liberal social engineering at its worst.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:26:42 PM EST
Ask him if he knows about one of our civil rights called the 2ND AMENDMENT
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:45:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:
take in a strong mixed drink and towards the end of class tell him he's as dumb as a box of moldy shit.......................*

*this may or may not be good advice but probably what i would have done




+1 ....I went to school w/ this jackass...he's not bullshittin', aside from Tex and i being full blown alchoholics, theres alot of good advice here thus far...AK
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:52:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By the_ak_kid:

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:
take in a strong mixed drink and towards the end of class tell him he's as dumb as a box of moldy shit.......................*

*this may or may not be good advice but probably what i would have done




+1 ....I went to school w/ this jackass...he's not bullshittin', aside from Tex and i being full blown alchoholics, theres alot of good advice here thus far...AK



turn on your site IMs you sorry monkeyfucking faggot.........................ive got your gun here, thought you'd pick it up, instead i think i'll go shoot out the barrel.....................................
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:00:09 PM EST
Tell him you're going to make it a point in life to buy another assault weapon for everyone in the class who doesn't.

Then tell him there's nothing he can do to stop you.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:31:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:39:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
The best use for assault weapons is for ridding the world of Libertarians. Bunch of toked up people with improper morals.



a mod advocating violence upon an entire group of people based on their political beliefs? j/k


um... whats wrong with libertarians? I don't know everything about what they believe, but they seem to have their head on straight about the role of government...
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:52:25 PM EST
Check out paper written by ISHOOTTOLIVE herewww.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=22&t=184538
Top Top