Mister Poll: The Ultimate Assault Weapons Poll

Do you think that guns labeled as "assault weapons" by certain groups and polititians should be legal for civilian ownership?

Yes they should be legal. Banning these guns is only a political ruse to eventually ban all guns, "assault weapon" or not.

No, they should not be legal. These are weapons of mass destruction that are the weapon of choice of drug dealers, terrorists, and mass murderers.

I don't know. I don't know enough about this topic to make an informed decision.

What does the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" mean?

It is any semi-automatic weapon that can be spray fired from the hip, holds dozens of rounds, and is only slightly less deadly than a machine gun.

It is a nonsense term invented by gun control advocates to mean whatever they want it to mean. Its a perversion of the term "assault rifle," which is a select-fire, not a semi-auto only weapon.

In 1994, then-President Bill Clinton pressed for a crime bill whose keynote feature was a 10-year ban on the manufacture and importation of certain semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. It also banned the manufacture of detachable box magazine s holding more than 10 rounds. The ban was passed by the then-Democrat controlled congress in September 1994 and signed into law by Clinton. In 2004, the then-Republican controlled congress quietly allowed the 1994 ban to "sunset" and be erased off the books. Was the 2004 decision the right one?

Yes. Bill Clinton's stupid law cost his party the control of congress to the Republicans for the first time in decades, the "assault weapons" ban had no noticable effect on crime, and was an infringement on citizens right to keep and bear arms.

No. The Assault Weapons ban of 1994-2004 saved many lives. Not renewing it was a mistake. However I would not expand the assault weapons ban to include any additional new types of guns.

No. The Assault weapons ban of 1994-2004 was one of the most valuable anti-crime/anti-terrorism tools we had, and allowing it to expire put our population at extreme risk. I would not only renew it, but expand it to ban many more guns. Those congressmen who voted for the law back in 1994 and lost their seats the following November should be remembered as martyrs, sacrifcing their political careers for the good of the country.

How do you feel in general about the second amendment?

The second amendment is an individual right, not a so-called "collective" right. The right of citizens to own and use guns does not belong to government to grant or take away. Rather the right to keep and bear arms was "endowed by their creator" from the beginning.

The second amendment is only there for states to maintain militia units. It is not an individual right. Any "right" for civilians to own guns for private purposes such as hunting or target shooting is merely a priviledge from the government, that can be altered as society's needs change over time.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban banned rifles based on cosmetic features such as the ability to accept a detachable magazine, a folding or colapsable stock, protruding pistol grip, bayonet mount, and spigots for launching rifle grenades. The 1994 Ban stated that if a gun was a semi-automatic that took detachable magazines, and had two or more other "forbidden" features as listed aboveWas this justified or just plain dumb?

Justified

Just Plain Dumb

One of the main inclusions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a ban on the future manufacture of detachable box magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Pre-existing magazines could still be possessed, sold, bought, and pre-1995 made magazine still imported from overseas. Do you believe that magazine capacity limits are important for civilian guns?

If you believe in magazine capacity restrictions on civilians, what should be done with all those magazines already legally owned by gun owners?

I don't believe in magaizine capacity restrictions.

Allow their owners to keep them. Just don't put any new ones on the market.

All magazines either need to be plugged down to a certain capacity or else turned into the police for destruction. Any gun owner who fails to comply should face prosecution in court.

One of the gun features mentioned by the 1994 Assault Weapons is the presence of a "protruding vertical pistol grip" on a long gun just behind the trigger. Is this a dangerous feature that should be banned from civilian guns?

No. It's simply cosmetic and does not alter the function of the gun in any way. It simply allows for a more comfortable grip on the gun.

Yes. It allows guns to be spray-fired from the hip, racking up a deadly rate of fire otherwise unattainable. Civilian long guns should not have a pistol grip.

Another feature mentioned in the 1994 law was a flash hider, or flash suppressor. This is a metal shaping at the end of the muzzle which reduces but does not completely eliminate the gun's flash signature. Should flash suppressors be banned on civilian guns?

No. Flash hiders were designed to reduce the flash signature of guns in combat so an enemy a hundred yards away would be less likely to pinpoint the exact location of a soldier firing under battle conditions. This feature has little to no relevence to the nature of modern domestic criminal shootings. It is simply cosmetic and does not make any gun shoot any deadlier.

Yes. Banning flash hiders on civilian guns could save many police lives in shootouts with criminals. Flash hiders serve no sporting purpose on civilian guns.

Bayonet lugs or a metal stud for mounting a knife-type bayonet was mentioned as a restricted feature in new semi-auto long guns under the 1994 Assault Weapons. A bayonet is a knife or sometimes a spear-like point fastened onto the muzzle of a rifle for use in hand to hand combat when the enemy closed in where the gun could not be reloaded fast enough. Bayonets have been used since the early 1700s and modern guns such as the M-16 and AK-47 have provisions for mounting knife-type bayonets. Should the laws require that guns owned by civilians have any and all bayonet fittings milled off?

No. Bayonets mounted on rifles have hardly been used in combat since the 19th century and today serve only a ceremonial purpose. There is no recorded instance of a domestic crime in the U.S. being committed with a rifle mounted with a bayonet. Banning bayonets on rifles is downright silly!

Yes. Any guns legally owned by civilians need to have the bayonet mountings ground off for safety's sake. A criminal on a rampage could make good use of a bayonet mounted to a rifle to help stall officers from tackling him down.

Another feature mentioned by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was a folding or colapsable stock. These were developed shortly before World War II for weapons intended for paratroopers. The stock can colapse or fold, depending on the stock, allowing the gun to be stored in a more compact form. The gun can ussually still be fired normally with the stock in the colapsed position, but the stock does not make the gun fire any deadlier. Is a folding or colapsable stock okay for civilian guns too.

Yes, they're perfectly fine for civilian guns. More compact for hunters or outdoorsman too, and some people think they look cool. Even with a folding stock, a rifle in the U.S. must still be at least 26 inches long to be legal for general civilian ownership. Banning guns on the basis of a folding stock is silly.

No, they're not. It would make a high powered long gun too easy to hide in a trenchcoat. This feature is not acceptable for civilian guns. Any civilian guns with this feature need to have the stock pinned open, or else the gun should be disposed of.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 also mentions "grenade launchers" What this is refering to is provisions on a gun (such as a spigot with special aiming sights) with a military-type rifle to fire rifle grenades from the muzzle by loading a special blank cartridge loaded into the chamber. Such live grenades have never, ever been sold on the civilian market and possession of them would be highly illegal, rendering any cosmetic features on civilian guns intended for launching grenades little more than "cool looks," at most. Should civilian guns with such fittings be banned anyway?

No. Without actual live grenades, this is stupid and would deface many historical military rifles owned by collectors. rifle-grenades have never been employed by domestic criminals as they would be impractical and too complex to use without proper training. The presense of built-in grenade launching fittings on a rifle's sights or muzzle does not effect the way the gun functions with normal ammunition.

Yes. They should be banned, are you kidding! We need to make sure no illegal grenades come into the U.S. vis black market from third world troublespots. All firearms in U.S. civilian hands need to be incapable of aiming and launching grenades. All spigots, grenade launcher sights, and other sights need to be milled of all those gun immediately.

If you believe in assault weapons bans, how would you go about it?

I don't believe in "assault weapons" bans

Ban the future manufacture and importation, but allow existing ones to be bought and sold on the used market normally.

Ban the future manufacture, importation and require all existing ones be registered. Registered ones could be then sold to another individual or collector with an "assault weapons license."

Ban the importation, manufacture, and transfer of assault weapons. Existing ones would be registered as family heirlooms and could not be transferred except to an heir on the owners will. Turining it in for destruction would be highly encouraged.

Ban them totally. Confiscate all existing assault weapons from their owners, and take legal action against those who refuse to turn the guns in. No grandfathering. Only the police and military should be allowed to have assault weapons, period.

In general, do you believe in the right of an individual to self defence in the face of danger to life or limb of himself or someone else, even if it means in certain case taking the life of the attacker(s)?

Yes

No

Do you personally or anyone in your household own any semi-automatic or self-loading centerfire rifle that fires centerfire ammuntion?

Yes

No.

Not Sure

If Yes, what gun(s) do you and/or your household own?

If you're a gun owner who owns any such weapons and a law passes that requires you register all such weapons in your possession, would you comply?

Yes. I would register all such weapons as required by the law.

I would only register some of them, if I owned multiple such guns

Not Sure

No. I would refuse to register them and hide them under the bed/attic/basement

If you're a gun owner, and a law passes that demands you turn in or surrender such guns, would you comply and hand them over when they come knocking on your door?

Yes. I would hand them all over to avoid going to jail.

I would hand over some of them to get the federal agents or whoever to go away, but keep others hidden someplace.

Not sure.

No. I would refuse to hand them over but allow myself to get arrested and hope for a peaceful solution such as winning a court case on the constitutionality of the new law.

No. If that happened, it means its time for armed resistance and the next American revolultion.