The Revolution Starts: Confiscation

[rogue06]

no. They only TRIED to ban the manufacture of vaguely defined "assault" weapons and "high capacity magazines". You could still own any made prior to 1994. But the law was so messed up and full of loopholes it was practically not even there.

And since they were based on cosmetic features (essentially any gun that "looked" scary to Feinstein and a couple of her staffers^[1]), simple changes like changing the color and removing a bayonet lug magically transformed them into "not an 'assault weapon'."







1. Including single shot firearms that you had to "break" open, manually remove the spent cartridge, put a new one in and then close it all back up before you could fire a second round.

[JimL]

no. They only TRIED to ban the manufacture of vaguely defined "assault" weapons and "high capacity magazines". You could still own any made prior to 1994. But the law was so messed up and full of loopholes it was practically not even there.

No, they didn't try to ban, they did ban. As usual of course there were to many loopholes and so forth for it to have the effect intended, but thats not the point. The point is that the law was challenged multiple times and each time the ban/restrictions were upheld as Costitutional. So, we as a government have the authority to limit or ban certain weapons, the descretion is ours, and no, there is no such thing as a natural right, as defined in the Constitution, to keep and bear them.

[Sparko]

No, they didn't try to ban, they did ban. As usual of course there were to many loopholes and so forth for it to have the effect intended, but thats not the point. The point is that the law was challenged multiple times and each time the ban/restrictions were upheld as Costitutional. So, we as a government have the authority to limit or ban certain weapons, the descretion is ours, and no, there is no such thing as a natural right, as defined in the Constitution, to keep and bear them.

And yet people still owned the guns legally all through the time and the "ban" is no more. So no, they did not ban "assault weapons"

[JimL]

And yet people still owned the guns legally all through the time and the "ban" is no more. So no, they did not ban "assault weapons"

Of course they did, because the ban was only on the continued manufacture of them. My point was that possession any firearms is not a natural right and the government does have the ability to limit, restrict and or regulate firearms.

[Sparko]

Of course they did, because the ban was only on the continued manufacture of them. My point was that possession any firearms is not a natural right and the government does have the ability to limit, restrict and or regulate firearms.

Jimmy, they still sold them too. And they still manufactured them. They just modified them a teeny bit to fit with the law. They were functionally exactly the same. People just bought them and modified them themselves. And you are still wrong: possession of firearms is a natural right and this law never even addressed POSESSION of them. They just thought they could do an end run around the 2nd by restricting the manufacture of certain types of guns. They figured if nobody made them, then nobody could get them. They were wrong. People still had millions of them from before the law and still could buy the functional equivalent during the "ban" and modify them at home.

My brother bought a fully functional AR-15 complete with pistol grip, scary looking barrel wrap, accessory rail and collapsible stock, during the BAN.


Here are two functionally identical rifles. One was legal, one was "banned."

[JimL]

Jimmy, they still sold them too. And they still manufactured them. They just modified them a teeny bit to fit with the law. They were functionally exactly the same. People just bought them and modified them themselves. And you are still wrong: possession of firearms is a natural right and this law never even addressed POSESSION of them. They just thought they could do an end run around the 2nd by restricting the manufacture of certain types of guns. They figured if nobody made them, then nobody could get them. They were wrong. People still had millions of them from before the law and still could buy the functional equivalent during the "ban" and modify them at home.

My brother bought a fully functional AR-15 complete with pistol grip, scary looking barrel wrap, accessory rail and collapsible stock, during the BAN.


Here are two functionally identical rifles. One was legal, one was "banned."

Not the point Sparko. I acknowledged that there were loopholes which made the law ineffective, there usually are when compromise is concerned, but the point is that the passage of the ban, and the Supreme Courts upholding of it, show that the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited and that the government can regulate what weapons can or can not be possesed.