Enough with the racism argument because it's going too far and everyone knows it...

All it did was ban cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Manufacturers found loopholes around these cosmetic bans and voila! They still produced "assault style weapons" but with closed stocks and attached magazines. These very same weapons were capable of killing everyday individual as effective as the .22 short pistol of the assault ban era.

It didn't save any lives nor did it stop a crime seeing how Joe Snuffy could have easily bought any SKS, black market assault rifle -or- Saturday night special to shoot the very same store clerk.

Seeing how weapons are abundant on the black & legal markets courtesy of law biding citizens under the 2nd amendment and criminals, implementing bans on weapons is like making marijuana illegal... people will still have access to both and abuse them accordingly.

It's too late in the game to deny citizens their constitutional rights just as it's too late in the game to seize all activity in the 60's for drug smugglers and their Cessna’s.

 

Well, the ban expired today. Who's gonna go buy some guns?

http://www.ktva.com/Stories/0,1413,1...400094,00.html

 

What happens if some criminal or bad guy B & E's into your house and steals your AR-15?

There are some good arguments both ways on this one. I'm kind of on the fence here. It seems like the definition of an assault rifle as far as the gov't is concerned is quite silly. It also seems silly to defend yourself in your home with a rifle instead of a handgun. Wouldn't a rifle be much more difficult to use in close quarters? And wouldn't it also be more likely to pass through walls and end up hitting a bystander? Not sure about this, I'm ballistically uninformed. I used to think that the whole 'populace defending itself from it's gov't' was ridiculous, but the way things are going now, it doesn't seem so crazy anymore...

http://www.johntitor.com/

 

They'd have to breach my huge safe to access the weapons in the first place. I use a pistol for personal protection in my home.

It still isn't a very valid argument... what if a burglar stole your car and ran someone over with it? You'd report the weapon in the unlikely event it was stolen to the DOJ just as you would any stolen car with the VIN.

For that matter... what if they stole your faberware knife set from the kitchen counter etc?

To answer your question a pistol is the most logical choice for home protection based on telegraphing and close quarter control where the bad guy can grab the muzzle. As for bullet velocity and ft lbs in close quarters what you sacrifice in bullet weight for the rifle cartridge = more velocity and the exact opposite respect for pistol rounds. Basically, both tend to travel down walls and can be lethal in other respects. Just make sure you're aware of your surroundings and DON'T miss.

 

I was just throwing that what if out there for fun. I figured most people don't use their rifles for home defense. So the argument for home defense is out, but the armed populace argument is still intact. That one makes more sense to me anyway.

 

Just use a shogun for home protection.

-Chris

 

...EXACTLY, thank you Salty...a PISTOL is the answer for home protection...so for assault rifles, my idea (only have ammo legal at the shooting range) makes PERFECT sense...
but to fuel more fire...why do all you 'Americans' feel so impassioned by the right to own crazy guns?!?!...could it be a Napoleonic issue...

 

Actually a shotgun can be even worse. I'm not saying this to be an ***, Chris... i'm saying this to make sure you guys use the proper weapon going around a corner at 0dark30.

Imagine waking up from bed to the sound of an intruder in the middle of the night when you're disoriented from sleep. You get out of bed, grab your extremely long mossberg and attempt to clear the first corner. You slowly pie the corner too close with the long barrel and voila! The bad guy came out of the shadows, grabbed the long barrel and used your own shotgun against you.

If you're going to use a shotgun it would have to be sawed off very close to the chamber with maybe a pistol style grip. I know they're illegal but if that's all you have for home protection you need to improvise to stay safe.

 

Having illegal ammo is something CA is trying to pass as we speak and I thinks it's a patheic idea. It wouldn't have any power over someone that has a large surplus of ammo, country area plinkers and reloaders. It would be pointless, abosolute madness and impossible to trace.

 

I'd like to add another thought on this. Say some average guy snaps and decides to commit some terrorist act, a la Timothy McVeigh. Now your average Joe isn't gonna know who to contact to purchase illegal arms from Mexico, but he sure can go to Wal-Mart and pick up a modern day assualt rifle and enough ammo to kill everyone at the post office.

Just throwing this idea around too...

 

It's just another hypothetical that can be beaten to death like anything else.

What if this same person bought ammonium nitrate from a hardware store to build a powerful explosive, made a pipe bomb out of matchsticks heads or out of propane (something i'm surprised hasn't happened due to it's explosive potential) purchased from a local Arco station?

The sky's the limit for anything if you put your mind to it and are dedicated enough to your cause.

 

guess you're right on that, but I think they are putting restrictions on ammonium nitrate, and the fertilizer industry supports it. Every little bit counts. But you are correct, it's just an open ended hypothetical. But if we are trying to make this nation as safe as it can be, there should be restrictions on weapons and hazardous materials.

 

It does not make perfect sense because once again you are only restricting law abiding citizens! Why!? You can buy frangible ammunition for nearly all calibers and they WILL be stopped by a wall or door and are much safer in close quater situations for "non combatants". That is what many swat teams use in those situations, why not us?
Not to douse your flame but calling them "crazy guns" is a silly as calling them "assualt rifles" and I think underlines most of the anti gun attitude. That a gun can be bad, when in reality they are inanimate objects. It is people that abuse their rights that are the problem, and you can't stop a free man from doing what he wants, unless you take away his freedom which is the real issue here.
If I think for my home a semi auto rifle is best for defense purposes then so be it. Why stop me? Am I, a law abiding gun owner a threat to YOU? If the gun I shoot at the range the most and am most comfortable using is a semi auto rifle then when push comes to shove I'm going to reach for what I know, and people nearby will be safer because of it.

 

There ARE restrictions on weapons, and not just firearms. The problem is that we cannot predict who will "snap", and its wrong to take away rights because someone may snap. Its kind of like innocent until proven guilty. You can own a weapon, but if you abuse that right then it is stripped from you. That is the best, most fair thing we can do as a society.