Ten years after President Clinton signed it into law, the assault weapons ban is dead. Good riddance.

Just as President Bush and the 107th Congress had no right to codify McCain-Feingold, President Clinton and the 103rd Congress had no right to codify the assault weapons ban. The First Amendment fobids the former while the Second Amendment forbids the latter.

Along with his failed attempt to socialize health care and impose gays on the military, President Clinton's gun ban is one of the three policy reasons why his party got trounced in the mid-term elections of 1994. Like President Clinton, President Bush supports the assault weapons ban. Unlike President Clinton, he is not politically foolish enough to actively push for it. In 2000, gun owners constituted 48 percent of all voters. Any attempt to roll back the rights they exercise, as the Democrats found out the hard way in 1994, will result in retaliation at the ballot box.

total bs. total bs. How can any policymaker, regardless of tier political persusion or idealogical beliefs defend the sale of weapons that are designed to kill, maim, and dismember human life to non-millitary personnel? How can human being justify the deaths the expiration of this legislation will cause?

I agree with Dan. Herein lies why...

Because I sought help for my bi-polar disorder, I am not allowed to own a firearm. Now then, I may have a mental health problem, but I obey the law, so I will not purchase one to keep illegally. BUT, anyone can get a gun.A convicted felon, also prohibited from owning a weapon, will get one anyway since he has no respect for the law. This means he can break into my home and kill my family, while all I have to defend them is 911 (sorry a bullet is still faster than speed dial) and harsh language. Give me back my Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

But, to play devils advocate, one could argue the point that the second amendment was designed because of the need for a public militia--those don't exist anymore.

Most of the weapons banned by this law did not fall into the category of true assault weapons. But, through some technicalities, many were deemed to qualify.

For instance, any gun with a closed trigger and pistol type stock was considered an assault weapon. Many single shot rifles and shotguns fall into these guidelines.

Question is: have murders decreased with the advent of this law? I think not.

Bottom line is that is somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll find a way whether assault weapons are available or not.

Mr Koch
Few argue with your right to defend yourself. The argument is with assault weapons. If they can’t be legally purchased then they won’t be manufactured. Thus criminals can’t get them.
The fact that some break the law can not be rational for passing or not passing laws.

I agree with the logic of your argument, Robert, but here is where I see the flaw in your premise.

Cocaine cannot be legally purchased in the U.S., yet it flows into our country every day.

If you could guarantee me that NO ONE could possibly own a weapon like that...I would be for the ban...otherwise, no.

Mr Koch
I obviously can not guarantee you anything.
But please note only criminals produce cocaine. In the US companies/corporations who for the most part adhere to the law manufacture guns. Ask yourself - Are we better off banning assault weapons or not?
Few law abiding citizens will be purchasing assault weapons for self defense.