Arizona is in the news again, this time for supplying the Mexican drug cartels with weapons as 20 people were arrested Tuesday accused of buying hundreds of AK-47s in US gun stores.

FoxNews (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/phoenix/gun-running-operation-az-01252011)

MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41257218/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)

When did the Assault Weapon Ban expire? I know it couldn’t have been during fellow Texans George W Bush’s term since he campaigned on keeping the ban in effect. ;)

I’m a gun owner and former NRA member, but I have no problem with banning Assault Rifles and high capacity magazines. I also find it overly silly that the ATF requested a change in policy that would make gun dealers report the sale of two or more long guns. However, the NRA is protesting the proposal because it may infringe on someone rights (Yea, the rights of the Mexican Drug Cartels it would seem). It would just make the regulation the same as it is with handgun. The NRA’s logic pretty much explains why I am a former member. As it is now, someone can buy 140 firearms for $104,251. cash and it isn’t reported to the ATF. :(

This thread is not about gun control there are other threads for that. This thread is about the Assault Rifle Ban, High Capacity Magazines and the ATF request to be notified about two or more long rifle sales.

The assault weapon ban was lifted during the Bush presidency. I know this because sale of large caliber weapons(.50 cal) spiked after the election of Obama(because he's for stricter gun control). I believe it was in '06. Bush may have campaigned on it, but his fellow Republicans campaigned on NOT extending it. Since the president does not make the laws, it was up to Congress to extend the assault weapon ban.

I do agree that is should be reported for large sales of firearms. But 140/20 means it was around 7 weapons each. That in itself might not get anyone's attention if they went to 7 different shops, on 7 different occasions.

This isn't much news really. I know of a shop that was recently shut down for selling firearms to people specifically to be taken to Mexico. They were probably sold at the gun store that was shut down. I would guess those records are what led them to the people who were trafficking them.

I personally think the assault rifle bans were too vague. You could take a legitimate hunting rifle and change the grip and stock and it would suddenly be an assault rifle by the rules. Some people(myself included) tend to enjoy firing military weapons. My favorite is the M14, but the AR-15 and AK-47 have their bonuses.

As for the NRA... I'm more on the side of RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. If it were up to the NRA, rocket launchers would be legal... for hunting purposes I guess...

High capacity magazines.. well.. I say keep them. I don't need them, because I can reload pretty effing fast(I usually have a new clip in before the spent hits the ground). Even if they were banned, I know people who could make their own(and likely would).

Nope, at least one of the major shops is still open as stated in the linked articles. 140 weapons was not the entire haul that was the purchase from that one shop. 17 at a time sounds a little high to me. However, why do you need two HK-47? If you do need two at once what is the problem reporting that to the ATF? (Just like handguns)...

Well first off, some couples shoot together, so purchasing two at once wouldn't be out of the realm of likely scenarios... but then of course there is this:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/51CTM49rcrs/0.jpg)

Personally I prefer accuracy to volume. .50 cal rifle is fun as heck to shoot(but at $5 a round, it's not cheap... yes, I said $5 PER ROUND... I need a new supplier...). BUT I'm not one to judge. I guess they think, "There's a bullet with your name on it. I'm not sure which one it is, so I'll just fire all of them." I don't see a problem with reporting large volume purchases. Or in the case of rifles, more than 3(mom, dad, little Timmy) should be reported to the ATF.

Well first off, some couples shoot together, so purchasing two at once wouldn't be out of the realm of likely scenarios.
Again so what? If someone isn't up to “no good”, what is the problem with a report being made to the ATF? Reporting 2 or more to the ATF would enable them to track if someone went to 10 places and bought 2 or more if they are up to “no good”.

If mom, dad and little Timmy all get a hand gun then they are reported to the ATF now. I haven’t heard of the ATF knocking down doors and imprisoning families for hand gun purchases. The ATF never knocked on my door even though I have purchased more than one hand gun at a time in the past year.

Next question is if anyone is against or for (unsure of the technical term) tagged “signature” ammo (ammo that is designed to be easily traced)? It is another case where I really don’t have a problem with it if it will make law enforcements job easier. My only apprehension about it is that the game warden may also be able to trace exactly who shot that deer. :(

However, why do you need two HK-47?

Yes, why indeed would we need two hilariously psychopathic assassin droids? :xp:

Anyways, my position is that there isn't exactly a need for assault rifles to be owned by the public. They're military grade rifles, and your average Joe shouldn't really need something meant for the military.

Meh, I'm actually for all firearms being reported. Because lets face it, they are as aware of the laws as we are(usually more so) so if we put an allowance of only 1 without being reported, they'l just hit more shops. So report all firearm sales. Then the ATF can get triggered with the same person purchasing multiple firearms from multiple shops.

I've never had a problem with "Signature" ammo except that it will increase ammo costs(my .50 cal will be even more expensive... $12 per round? Meh I'd still get it lol). Heck I wish we could get the ammo thing from Judge Dredd where each round was tagged with the user's DNA lol

@Ping: LOL that's a funny catch.
But I disagree. Many civilians like to own military grade firearms. Technically there isn't a need for the general public to own most firearms, but they do. Security firms and private bodyguards tend to use varying levels of protection. They are still civilians, but may have to protect people from a serious threat.

They are still civilians, but may have to protect people from a serious threat.What serious threat? The Mexican Drug Cartels that we are also supplying the weapons to? We continue to sale assault rifles to protect ourselves from the treat caused by out lax gun laws. That makes perfect sense to me. :)

I’m semi-torn on the Assault Rifle ban, I really don’t want U.S. lax laws supporting criminals either here or across the border, but I also don’t want to punish responsible gun owners. I’m more of the opinion that Assault weapons that can be converted to automatic should be banned. Other than target practice and collectors there is no real legit reason for a civilian to own one. Home defense? Buy a shotgun. :)

I also feel high capacity magazines should be banned. I fully understand people can make their own. I also know people can make pipe bombs, should we make pipe bombs legal just because people can make them? I’d rather take my chances with a person that has the training and expertise to modify a firearm than continue to allow it to be convenient for people like Loughner to have easy access. Like Tommycat wrote, there is no real reason for anyone with any experience with firearms to need them, so they are useless to begin with for someone experienced with firearms. However, for someone like Loughner, with limited firearm experience, they can be very useful.

Would any of this stop gun violence? No

Would it slow gun violence down? Perhaps

If Loughner would have not had the high capacity magazine, he may have had to reload sooner thus giving the citizens a chance to stop him sooner. There is no way of know either way. What I do know it is far too convenient to purchase guns in this country for people that are up to no good.

I agree with you, Tommycat about responsible gun ownership. I have always advocated that the person that purchases a firearm is responsible for its use. It is time for states and the federal governments to write that into law. You buy a gun for someone that later uses that gun in a crime, then you should be held accountable for that crime. Please don’t give me that, but what if the gun was stolen. If it was stolen, then how could you be held responsible for its use? I hope people are at least smart enough to know you have to file a police report for a stolen weapon. It is also necessary to file the report to recover the cost from your homeowners/tenant homeowner’s policy.

It all reminds me of Chevy Chase and the "Deal of the Century"

I wrote a paper on this once..... my professor wrote on it, "Good for Glenn, A-."

Not sure if that meant that the paper was good, or if it was good for a doofus like myself.

The paper was published by the department, and disappeared into obscurity, as does any real "change" re: gun ownership and legislation: the PAC's and special interests, the NRA, all of them have to much at stake to significantly change things... The Cartels I am sure are active in these American politics.

I saw 'US Supplies Weapons to...' and was hoping for some sort of Iranian arms for nukes thing but, alas...

Hostages jmac, we only trade arms for hostages ~ mimartin

@mimartin: It's usually private firms like Pinkerton, Securitas or any number of people that do a great deal of traveling abroad. Granted, for nearly all instances, a simple hand gun is more than will be needed with properly trained security personnel. but there is something to be said for having something visible and scary.

As I said, I could take or leave high capacity magazines. Then again, as "Wild" Bill Hickok said, "I don't want to be killed on account of a lack of shootin back." Though times are significantly different now.

As for home defense, I have already stated in other threads that a shotgun is ideal for that. An M16 M14, AK-47 or any other "Assault" weapon is a poor choice for home defense. And even for Z-Day defense. They all require a steady well aimed shot. A shotgun has the advantage of 1) the sound of the rack being scary. 2) Pointing it in the general area of the target usually scores a hit 3) there are several "less than lethal" ammo types. And finally, 4) they don't have as much penetration power, so you don't accidentally kill little Timmy sleeping in the room behind the perp.

As for the stolen gun thing: Yeah... There are two problems with those arguments. First, you were an irresponsible owner who did not properly secure your firearms when not in use. I find it funny that people will lock their car, lock their doors, put their money and important papers in a safe, but put their firearms in a shoebox... yeah, like a thief won't know to look in shoeboxes... The second is, as you said, being an irresponsible citizen for failing to report the firearm stolen.

I don't know about Laughner. I think not having a small count is why he was unprepared to reload. I know I prefer the smaller round capacity so I know the count. Counting to 30 while running the course I have leaves too much room for a mis count or a double tap to have you too far off. But no telling honestly.

Why would anyone EVER lift a ban on assault weapons? They just don't serve any other purpose than to maim and kill large numbers of people. People that say they use assault weapons for hunting or anything like that are just part of literal overkill.

Why would anyone EVER lift a ban on assault weapons?to fend off the army when the government turns on us

to fend off the army when the government turns on us

Was this sarcasm? I really hope it was.

Well since the posts were lost, I'll explain it again. When we're talking about banning "assault weapons" it would be helpful if you define what an assault weapon is. The internationally recognized definition is a rifle that has a selective fire option that enables it to fire in automatic mode. Since those firearms have already been made illegal as of the 1986 amendment to the National Firearms Act, we are left with a purely subjective definition which bans small arms that are actually less dangerous than legitimate hunting rifles. A .223 round isn't as deadly as a .30-06. Think about it. Military weapons are geared for wounding more than killing because a dead soldier takes out one soldier. A wounded one takes out 2 or more.

Not that it should be specific to hunting since we as Americans were expected to come to our country's aid with our own weapons. Technically we are supposed to be able to own the weapons our military has to come to the aid of the country.

Of course most of the people for the ban would rather we not have any firearms at all.

Was this sarcasm? I really hope it was.

In a word......yes. Jmac, er I mean Bart, does like to serve up a lot of sarcasm in these parts.


I agree with you, Tommycat about responsible gun ownership. I have always advocated that the person that purchases a firearm is responsible for its use. It is time for states and the federal governments to write that into law. You buy a gun for someone that later uses that gun in a crime, then you should be held accountable for that crime. Please don’t give me that, but what if the gun was stolen. If it was stolen, then how could you be held responsible for its use? I hope people are at least smart enough to know you have to file a police report for a stolen weapon. It is also necessary to file the report to recover the cost from your homeowners/tenant homeowner’s policy.

Overall, don't really have a problem with having to register sales of weapons. Do have one caveat about the rsponsibility part. Insofar as it can be demonstrated that you bought the weapons knowing that the people were going to use them w/criminal intent (in which case you're an accessory anyway) or knowingly didn't report a stolen firearm, then there should be a penalty. If you purchase a weapon for someone who later decides to use that weapon in the commission of a crime w/o your knowing their intent (say you bought it for their self-protection or to use at a range), then no penalty should have to apply to you. If you took that for granted, then we basically agree on that issue too.

The Assault Weapons Ban annoys me, because it has a name brilliantly created by some Congressman's aide to make those ignorant of its content think it's an amazing thing.

For example:
Why would anyone EVER lift a ban on assault weapons? They just don't serve any other purpose than to maim and kill large numbers of people. People that say they use assault weapons for hunting or anything like that are just part of literal overkill.

This post demonstrates what most people who don't understand the bill think. They think that it bans those scary automatic weapons, protecting dozens of people from being mown down in a hail of gunfire.

Automatic weapons have been banned for a very long time, and still are. The Assault Weapons Ban bans guns that are no more dangerous than others, but just have certain cosmetic and/or ergonomic features (grenades and launchers were already illegal without the ban, so that part was pointless fluff). With the exception of bayonet mounts.

So really what it did was ensure that some shooters, depending on their ergonomic preferences, might be a tiny bit less comfortable while shooting you, and hey, at least they'll have to pull out a knife to stab you instead of using a bayonet.

TL;DR: It was useless legislation that served to look good on a politician's resume when going for reelection, but had no useful substance.

Pro-gun activists should be angry that it exists because it needlessly restricts them.
Anti-gun activists should be angry that they were tricked into supporting politician's reelection bids based on nothing.

I'm just angry because I need another excuse to shout 'AFFIX BAYONETS' and affix some bayonets.

The Assault Weapons Ban annoys me, because it has a name brilliantly created by some Congressman's aide to make those ignorant of its content think it's an amazing thing.Yeah, I'm glad only those evil, socialist, commie liberals do that. Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act :D

Yeah, I'm glad only those evil, socialist, commie liberals do that. Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act :D

Unfortunately, it was most of the dems in Congress who were ignorant of the content of that one. :xp:

Unfortunately, it was most of the dems in Congress who were ignorant of the content of that one. :xp:

Nope, that is the name of the current bill before the House. :rolleyes:

I was actually speaking about the original healthcare bill that the current one seeks to undo. I seriously doubt most of the dems know anymore about this bill either than the one they got roped into supporting. Par for the course. :carms:

Topic for another thread.... Stay on topic. Unless you have some evidence to add about both parties not titling bills to pander to their base, let’s get back on topic…

Yeah, I'm glad only those evil, socialist, commie liberals do that. Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act :D

I hope you don't think I implied that in any way.

I hope you don't think I implied that in any way.
Not at all. I just took what you wrote as sounding like the aid was cleaver in his naming the Bill, I was just pointing out that they all do it.

This post demonstrates what most people who don't understand the bill think. They think that it bans those scary automatic weapons, protecting dozens of people from being mown down in a hail of gunfire.

Automatic weapons have been banned for a very long time, and still are. The Assault Weapons Ban bans guns that are no more dangerous than others, but just have certain cosmetic and/or ergonomic features (grenades and launchers were already illegal without the ban, so that part was pointless fluff). With the exception of bayonet mounts.

Pretty much. It doesn't help that the media almost always use video of full auto AK-47's and M16's when talking about the subject.

reporter: The assault weapon ban is in front of congress again.<insert full auto weapons being fired> Congress is looking at ways to keep you safe. <insert video from LA bank robbery where they used illegally imported full auto rifles> This new law promises stricter gun laws to prevent massive slaughtering of our audience. <insert video of Columbine for tugging at heartstrings, even though none of their weapons were assault weapons>

And mimartin, this isn't limited to right/left on the idiots who try to get guns banned. Sure right NOW it's more leftist, but many Republicans have also used the Assault Weapon ban as a positive thing.

Oh, look: the ATF was behind this mess all along. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal)

This is my surprised face. :dozey: