Ban Assault Weapons
I know the last post on gun control was explosive, and it wasn’t even directly promoting more control. I was just trying to observe that College Campuses Are Safe, and there is no need for fear-inducing statements about “the rising murder rate on campuses” to justify lifting restrictions on concealed weapons. For that reason, I want to tread carefully when I present what I think is the common sense approach to this particular issue of gun control: assault weapons.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 classified certain types of firearms as “assault weapons” and prohibited their manufacture and sale to civilians. Like any hot issue, gun control is a fight waged on dozens of different fronts, but this issue seems like it should be abundantly clear. Civilians do not need to have assault weapons, and the government has a compelling interest to limit the production and sale of them to the public.
There are several stock arguments used by pro-gun advocates against most types of gun restriction, but all of them fall when applied to the AWB.
The first typical argument is for the right to self defense. Self defense may be a valid justification for possession of some firearms, but it absolutely does not apply to assault weapons. Unless you live in Baghdad, there is no incremental benefit to your self defense if you are packing an Uzi instead of a glock or an AR-15 (pictured above) instead of a 12-gauge. There is a reason why these weapons are considered “assault weapons;” they are designed for attacking a large force of enemies in a combat situation.
The second typical argument is the right to hunt. Surely no explanation is necessary why assault weapons are not useful or necessary for hunting animals.
The third typical argument is the Second Amendment. This one has always been rather shady because most NRA members ignore the crucial antecedent to the phrase about “the right to keep and bear arms” that expresses the purpose of a “well-organized militia [national guard].” But apart from that overall weakness, it is definitely a stretch to read the Amendment to imply that the people have the right to keep and bear assault weapons. Even the most hardcore NRA supporters realize that the line must be drawn at some point; most agree that the people should not have the right to keep and bear howitzers, B-2s, tanks, or mortars. This line is usually drawn when there is no legitimate self-defense or hunting right that would be furthered by a certain type of firearm or if that right is likely to be a danger to society overall.
The last argument is somewhat less typical, but should still be addressed, and that is that the people must retain the ability to match the government’s military power to prevent tyranny. Ironically, this usually irrelevant argument becomes the most relevant when we discuss a potential AWB. It is a nice idea in theory that if only enough people had assault weapons and other guns, then we could overthrow the government if it came to that. But there are way too many logical holes in that belief for it to be sustained. With modern technology, even widespread ownership of assault weapons among civilians would not be enough to check governmental power, even if people were willing to rise up in armed revolt.
The Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, ten years after it was implemented. Ten years was not nearly long enough to see any measurable effects of the ban, and Congress folded under lobbyist pressure and failed to renew it. The most legitimate criticism of the AWB was that it had too many loopholes. I agree with that assessment, but that makes me think that Congress should pass a new permanent AWB that closes those loopholes, making it harder for manufacturers to bypass the spirit of the law with tiny technical modifications. Assault weapons in the hands of civilians serve no legitimate purpose; they will never make this country safer, and anything we can do to limit the production and sale of them will be an overall benefit to society in the long run.
Ahh here we go again….the “assault weapons ban” should be called the “scary looking weapons” ban. Seriously, read the legislation for yourself instead of looking at the title. It has no relevance to the power of these weapons, because most “assault weapons” are less powerful than hunting rifles.
Lets examine the AWB why don’t we….
It bans rifles that accept a detachable magazine and have one or more of the following
(1) a pistol style grip — OMG, a different type of grip, modifying the angle at which you hold the gun by about 30 degrees, less in alot of cases. This definitely contributes to lethality. More people will die, because you can hold the gun differently. Watch out.
(2) a barrel shroud — jeepers, a “shroud” around a barrel so your hand doesn’t get burned. Last I checked, most ALL rifles have these. To date, and I’ve fired alot of rifles, I don’t believe I’ve ever fired a rifle where my support hand actually touched the barrel. Definitely adds to lethality, again, HA.
(3) a bayonet lug — dear god, you could attach a knife, to your gun? I bet this will cut down on the number of drive by bayonetings. For sure.
(4) a folding or telescoping stock — man, letting people adjust the length of pull of a weapon, to say, let people adjust a gun to fit themselves, this is a horrible idea. I mean all people are exactly the same; same size arms, chest, neck — letting people adjust a gun to themselves definitely means more people dying
(5) a flash suppressor — again, this could kill people. Porting muzzle flash so you don’t blind yourself in semi dark conditions surely contributes to our crime problem
(6) a grenade launcher attachment — this is the only one where there could be a point, however, since grenade launchers are already illegal for civilians to own, nonetheless grenades (all regulated by the NFA of 1934), this is moot
(7) can accept a high capacity magazine of more than 10 rounds — wow, you got me here, except for the fact that you can reload a “assault weapon” in about 1 second (no joke), doesn’t seem particularly useful to say that simply because a weapon holds more than 10 rounds it is somehow going to be more lethal.
Notice that in none of these provisions is there anything about the actual lethality of the weapon, namely caliber of the bullet or ballistics of the round. The picture you have on this blog is of an ar-15 or m-4, which shoots a .223 caliber round. This round is generally MUCH less lethal than a standard .308 winchester or .30-06 (the most common hunting rounds). Nor does it even go to the fact that semi-auto rifles like a browning BAR, a hunting rifle, can fire in semi-auto.
So what does this break down to: a scary looking weapons ban. The gun is black, it looks like a military arm, so we should ban it. It is no more lethal than a standard hunting rifle, and yet it has many advantages including be adjustable for people of different sizes and it is a favorite of women because of the low recoil of an ar-15 type rifle.
I believe this video provides an excellent overview of the subject. http://youtube.com/watch?v=vbIIjIFKYYg
“This round is generally MUCH less lethal than a standard .308 winchester or .30-06 (the most common hunting rounds).”
Why doesn’t the military use the more lethal guns mentioned above to kill human beings with?
“Why doesn’t the military use the more lethal guns mentioned above to kill human beings with?”
Alot of reasons actually. Design of the weapon and weight of the round are two important ones. The 5.56mm round is lighter, by a long shot, compared to the .308 counterpart. Now, the military does have some rifles using heavier rounds, but the idea is that soldiers in combat need to carry alot of ammo, and a lighter round gives them that capability. Should they be going on very short excursions they may well want to carry a more deadly round (like a m-14).
The second major point is that 5.56mm is a standard NATO round, which means that it is in wide production throughout the world and if we ever had a shortage in the US, it is readily available elsewhere.
The 5.56mm round also offers much lower recoil, in part due to the stoner weapon design of an ar/m type weapon. Lower recoil means more troops can fire it with a standard level of competency and makes it a better “all around” choice for the men and women of our armed forces.
It should be noted, also, that the military is looking to change rounds for more lethality, but for the foregoing reasons has been generally unable to do so.
Don’t get me wrong though, the 5.56mm round is sufficiently lethal. My point was that we aren’t banning “assault weapons” because they are lethal, the statute simply goes to how they look and features that have nothing to do whether they can be a greater danger to the public.
uhuh…and you think that its ok for the government (which is composed of individuals) is allowed to have tanks, fighter jets, biochemical weapons, massive bombs, super “intelligence” agencies, etc?
and you use the NRA as an example. nice try, but you forgot to mention GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/protect.htm
“Design of the weapon and weight of the round are two important ones. The 5.56mm round is lighter, by a long shot, compared to the .308 counterpart.”
“Lower recoil means more troops can fire it with a standard level of competency and makes it a better “all around” choice….”
I don’t know or understand crap about the lethality of any of the guns you speak of. However, it sounds like (from your description) that the use of an assault weapon certainly makes killing another human being easier and more convenient.
Bottom line — it is easier to train an entire army using a 5.56mm chambered rifle than it is with a bigger round. Women especially have a much easier time with this weapon. It doesn’t make killing any easier, it actually makes it harder as a larger round is a more effective killing round. The point is that the army as a whole can shoot and train on a 5.56mm round easier.
Change this to the civilian context and the different is clear. Instead of 1 rifle fits all, everybody can choose to buy what they want to learn to shoot. Read through the conditions of the statute in my first post and tell me how those “features” of a gun make it more deadly. The only one that you even have a prayer at is high capacity magazines, which as I said, don’t make that much of a difference. And, if you think it does, there is a very simple solution, ban the magazines, not all subset of guns that can use the magazines. This is a blanket bill to try and restrict people from owning guns. It has nothing to do with them being any more or less dangerous to the public.
Also, your statement “I don’t know or understand crap about the lethality of any of the guns you speak of. However” is exactly what I am talking about. It is people like you, who don’t know about guns, creating legislation to ban guns when they don’t even know what they are doing. Here is a link to a video of Carolyn McCarthy, the AWB sponsor, being questioned on the topic and she doesn’t even know what is in the bill.
“Read through the conditions of the statute in my first post and tell me how those “features” of a gun make it more deadly.”
I wasn’t speaking to the lethality of the assault weapons. I was speaking to the point that assault weapons make it easier and more convenient to kill another human being with. You made that point clearly in your first response to my question.
Jordan was that dude who killed one of those giant worms in Tremors, when it broke into his basement full of guns.
I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that I wanted to adopt a revived clone version of the 1994 ban. I realize that it did a poor job of defining what an assault weapon really is, and even after it made its definition, it was wide open for manufacturers to find loopholes. I tried to say that we need a new, better AWB that really cracks down on this type of weapon. Yes, I realize it will be hard to define, but I think at the end of the day, you and I and all other reasonable people realize that there is some such category out there somewhere.
But thank you for pointing out some important flaws in the 1994 Act that can hopefully be changed in the future.
I also noticed that you failed to contest the underlying point of an AWB in your effort to attack the details of the one from the past.
To address your points individually, though:
1) From what I understand, the pistol grip is not a comfort issue or an aesthetic issue, it is to allow firing from the hip (useful during an “assault,” but not so much on a “hunt” of animals or when a mugger grabs your purse.
2) A barrel shroud is not because firing one round at a deer or two at the intruder breaking into your house will melt the barrel; it is because when you are raking fire over a large target area with hundreds of rounds, the barrel will get hot enough to burn.
3) What possible legitimate reason could you have for wanting to attach a bayonette to your gun?
4) The folding stock is once again something that is designed to allow maximum maneuverability in a tight situation (clearing a house full of terrorists) while still maintaining the flexibility to stabilize once you get back out to the grassy knoll. It is not designed to fit the lovely contours of the sportsman’s body as he hunts quail.
5) Please please don’t tell me you are shooting semi-automatic weapons in the dark. Good God.
6) What is a possible good use for this attachment and why would it bother your if it couldn’t be there?
7) Your statement that a high-round magazine is not necessarily more dangerous than one with fewer rounds made me laugh. Okay, so Navy SEALs can reload in 1 second, but so what? If there is going to be some psychopath storming around a post office or college campus, I really think it would be better for all of us if he had to reload after every 7 rounds instead of every 30. You disagree?
Keep in mind that the civilian versions of all military weapons have one common limitation, that of being incapable of fully automatic fire, and there is no mystical easy conversion kit to fully automatic.
No Spray and Pray for civilians.
Pistol grips allow for a more ergonomic grip, but give no advantage to firing from the hip.
And to be honest, if someone is going to go on a murder spree, I’d prefer they do it firing from the hip, as they have a much greater chance of missing. Unless you are very well trained and have very good muscle memory, shooting like that is a great way to expand ammo while looking scary and hitting something only by accident.
Barrels will get hot enough to burn on a lot less than “hundred of rounds”, and where are you getting these hundreds of rounds, since you believe that it takes a while to swap magazines. Only fully automatic belt fed weapons can spray hundreds of rounds, and those are tightly regulated. Also, on AR style weapons, one or two shots can warm up the barrel quite nicely.
I am not a Navy SEAL or any type of special forces type, and yet I can swap out a magazine in a second or so. It just takes a little bit of practice (a few hours worth, and I don’t need to be at a range, I can safely practice with an empty gun and empty magazines in my basement). A person might not be able to pick up any old gun and immediately be able to quickly change magazines, but with a gun he/she has practiced with for a few hours, it is easily done. The most low capacity magazines will do is force me to spend more money on magazines and slightly increase the amount of weight and bulk I have to carry. And if I am planning a murder spree, am I really going to care about running up my credit card for extra magazines and ammo?
If someone just broke in to my house at 2AM, chances are it is dark out. Not having my night vision ruined by the first shot might be nice. I might have missed with the first shot, or the intruder might have friends.
A folding stock might allow for better maneuverability, but it also allows for personal adjustment. A V-8 engine will allow a person to drive at well over a hundred miles an hour, or maybe people just like the power available for towing their boat or RV.
I might just like having a bayonet, for fun, or for authenticity. I mean, why would a person want to put a supercharger on their car? I have an old WW2 rifle with a bayonet attached. I take it off for hunting or target shooting since it can get in the way, but I kinda like it.
Law abiding adults should not be limited in the cosmetic features they should have access to.
People like you freak the heck out of me and all the other normal people out here in the real world. You are making me more and more certain that we should do everything possible to ban assault weapons.
People like me? Seriously?
Please explain why? I’m curious.
Madrocketscientist was that dude’s wife.
To name just a few…
The image of you and people like you practicing swapping out magazines in your assault rifle in your basement. The fact that you want a bayonet on your gun. Your utter failure to see the functional benefit to several of these elements (increased functionality is a way of saying it becomes easier to kill lots of people quickly) while you pretend like they are all “cosmetic,” or “aesthetic.”
But still I don’t think you are getting my point. I am not trying to say that the 1994 ban was perfect. Obviously it had its loopholes and problems. I want a much more comprehensive ban that eliminates the weapons that are really only used for “assaulting” people. Maybe you could help come up with the qualifications to make the law more narrowly-tailored.
Because seriously, I have no interest in banning weapons that are legitimately and appropriately used for hunting or self-defense (absolutely zero interest). I am not a crazy anti-gun nut. But come on, man. Nobody needs a high-capacity, silenced, bayoneted AR-15 to do either of those things.
Jordan and Madrocketscientist defend their basement against giant worms
Actually, I don’t own an assault rifle, I own a Polish M44, a Mossberg 500 shotgun, and a single S&W M&P .45 automatic handgun. I have no desire to spend $2k on an AR style weapon, since I just don’t care for owning an M-16 light.
I just feel that rules and laws outlawing features which look scary or add minor improvements in comfort or style is nothing more than feel good legislation that fails to address the problem at hand. Give me a law that will stop some kid from killing his classmates, and I’ll be more receptive to it, but making rules just to make people feel better, without actually doing anything to alter the landscape, is pointless and a waste of time and resources while distracting people from finding a real solution.
Banning features which do not significantly affect the primary functionality of the weapon is like banning the rear spoiler on cars to stop drag racing. Yes, a rear spoiler will improve the handling characteristics of a car and allow the driver to maneuver at faster speeds, but does it stop drag racing?
And FYI, I have never practiced quickly swapping out magazines, but rather, I have swapped out magazines enough times at the range that my hands know the motion and I don’t have to think about it any more, my thumb hits the release as my other hand retrieves and inserts the new magazine. Simple muscle memory, same thing as putting a spoon into your mouth while eating.
That video was awesome. Nice job guys, that thing picked the wrong basement to break into.
So theoretically you would be in favor of a law that was tailored to prohibit weapons which have a primary purpose for killing people in “assault” fashion while allowing law-abiding civilians everywhere to keep their guns that they use for hunting and self-defense? Great, then it sounds like we agree.
But define “Assault Fashion”?
When I served in the military, assault weapons were switchable between fully automatic, three round burst, and semi automatic, and had grenade launchers. All of that is illegal on civilian weapons.
Assault fashion killing meant a team with known AORs, cover fire, and weapons discipline. All of which required a good amount of training. A kid with an Evil Black Rifle (EBR) he stole from his Uncle will not have such training unless he was in the military, in which case, he will be quite deadly with any gun he can get his hands on. Without such training, the quality and features of the rifle with grant no advantage and he’ll just be a killer with a slug thrower.
As for the video, HAHA, but seriously, they were supposed to be big gun nuts. Bad shooting form, bad aim, bad everything.
sigh…Hollywood
“Assault weapons in the hands of civilians serve no legitimate purpose”
do they serve the purpose of anyone?
and define “rights”
No David, that’s not what we’re saying.
I have a .22LR that looks like this (http://www.armscor.net/armscor_m1600.JPG). In your uneducated mind, you think that’s an “assault” rifle. True, I could assault someone with it, but with a round the size of seed.
Now, go look here for a line of children’s 22LR, especially the one in hot pink – - http://www.crickett.com/TheStore/Rifles/rifles.html
It fires the same round as my “assault rifle”. So, as you can see, what something looks like has nothing to do with what round it fires.
I’m getting an AR in 6.8 Remington SPC for self defense. For my wife, the 12 gauge is a better choice because it doesn’t require as much skill to use and the CHA-CHUNK of chambering buckshot is a good deterrent. But for me, I prefer something with a little more reach and better accuracy which I can obtain in tight quarters such as my house by retracting my stock and using the pistol grip to apply better pressure to maintain a steady aim. The red dot scope on top helps ensure that my shots go where they should without any magnification, which lets me keep both my eyes open.
No firearm has a primary purpose. The 50BMG is used by civilians for long range target shooting, but is also a good anti-material round for the military (assuming the material isn’t moving very fast). The .22lr is fantastic for plinking cans or targets at the range, but can also be just as lethal with a well placed shot.
None of us wish to make a law against a particular configuration of a weapon because the configuration has nothing to do with how it will be used. That’s up to the individual, and that’s where your desire to ban objects fails completely. The gun doesn’t make killing easy, just more efficient and ANY gun can do that, not just ‘assault rifles’.
David,
I understand your intent, I really do. The problem is that you are asking for a law that will not do anything, and I oppose laws that feel good but give no real result. If I thought that banning such features would make a weapon less lethal, I might be willing to support you. I can understand why civilians can’t easily own fully automatic weapons (they can, but the requirements are very steep) or grenade launchers, as such features can greatly amplify the potential for harm (although fully automatic fire is another great way to run out of ammo without hitting much, since even in a fire team, the purpose of the SAW is not to kill the enemy in job lots, but to make them keep their heads down while your team advances).
If a person likes the look and feel of a fully equipped AR-15, sans full auto and grenade launcher, I have no problem with it.
I’m not a fan of banning assault weapons either, for many of the reasons stated previously. Very few murders are committed using assualt weapons, so I see little practical benefit to banning these weapons. Surely there are other aspects of gun control that can be addressed to improve the U.S.’s staggering murder count.
I think you make a good observation with your characterization of fully automatic and grenade launchers as “features [that] can greatly amplify the potential for harm” without really providing any additional legitimate benefit. Okay, perhaps there is the “cosmetic” benefit – some people really like to look at that grenade launcher or feel the switch to full auto, but we reasonable people agree that their cosmetic benefit does not outweigh society’s right to be safe from people with fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers.
Now let’s take that line of logic and apply it to some of the other features. Some may be truly “cosmetic” without increasing the potential harm that weapon can cause to others. That’s fine. But everyone acknowledges that there are some features on a weapon that cannot be justified purely on the basis of personal preference or cosmetic reasons.
I am not looking for just a feel-good law. I want a law that allows legitimate ownership and use of guns without pretending that assault weapons are ever necessary.
Once again, I am completely fine with people having guns for legitimate purposes – hunting and self defense. Hunting never ever requires anything that would ever be categorized as an assault rifle. Uzis, Tec-9s, and AK-47s are never needed to hunt animals. Similarly, they are never needed for self-defense. A shotgun works, and so does a standard rifle like a 22 or a .30-06. Most commonly, though, people use a handgun of some sort. Although I respect the right to keep a gun like this for self defense, it still strikes me as incredibly stupid and unecessary.
…And once again I am proved wrong in my assumption that one tiny aspect of gun control is obvious.
miniman: You may be right, statistically speaking. But there are still a lot of these weapons out there and they have been used in dramatic and deadly ways (the Tec-9 at Columbine in 1999).
“Surely there are other aspects of gun control that can be addressed to improve the U.S.’s staggering murder count.”
That is really what we are all about, isn’t it? Any way that we can narrowly target laws to decrease the murder rate without sacrificing too much justifiable liberty would be a good thing to do. That is why we should target weapons, not for the number of times they are used in violent crimes, but for the incremental loss in legitimate liberty that is lost when we eliminate them. In my opinion, a new, more-comprehensive, less-loopeholy AWB is one of the first and best ways we can target the misuse of guns without trampling on the legitimate rights of civilians in this free country.
“justifiable liberty”
The fact that you can put those two words together shows that you will never really be interested in understanding the pro-freedom position.
You’re right, actually I do hate freedom.
But seriously, there is always a question of whether a liberty should or should not be restricted. No freedom is absolute. Since there is no natural law right about bearing assault weapons, we have to weigh it out on a cost-benefit analysis (a means of justifying or measuring something for an outcome). I say that there is no real cost in banning assault weapons, but there is potential for benefit. It is a measured, targeted way to reduce the threat of violence without undue infringement of liberty.
If you think that there is some sort of natural law or inalienable, unabridgable right to bearing assault rifles, then perhaps you are the one who is not interested in understanding the situation rationally.
I don’t think that all liberties have to be justified, because there are a lot of them that the people are assumed to have. I have written several posts about liberty and authoritarianism. But that doesn’t mean that the liberty of the people is 100% untouchable by the government. We create government to restrict things exactly like this that only pose increased danger without any legitimate positive use. I certainly think that John Stuart Mill would agree with an AWB.
I am not looking for just a feel-good law. I want a law that allows legitimate ownership and use of guns without pretending that assault weapons are ever necessary.
Which we’ve proven to you that you have no idea what an assault weapon is.
If you put stickers all over your car because you like the way NASCAR looks, it doesn’t make your car capable of 200mph. If you put a pistol grip on a rifle, it doesn’t make it deadlier. So no, there is nothing but illogical feel good crap behind your purpose.
Any weapon can be used for assault. A knife on a stick is no different than a bayonet. You claim to want to ban them, I refuse to allow that to happen until you can show me a mass of drive by bayonettings and thousands of people dieing a year from getting stabbed by them.
And your constant claim of “need” is ill-informed and ridiculous.People who have coyote and prairie dogs use the AR-15 platform to take them out at distances. The 7.62 round used in AK’s is pretty damned effective at stopping some game. It is quite apparent you have no very little knowledge of firearms yet you continue to call for restrictions on what you do not know.
Finally, you’re full of bovine excrement if you think that telling law abiding citizens that they can’t own something because other people MIGHT abuse them while all along ignoring that the VAST majority of crimes committed with firearms are done with standard pistols isn’t trampling on rights. It’s like saying nobody can drive because SOME people DUI.
People have killed other people with every tool available since the dawn of time. It’s not the tool, it’s the person.
“justifiable liberty”
“The fact that you can put those two words together shows that you will never really be interested in understanding the pro-freedom position.”
What exactly does that extremely academic and well thought out comment mean, Joe? Can you elaborate and educate the ignorant among us?
I’m interested in understanding the kook mentality of owning an assault weapon. Does owning such an instrument of death make one feel powerful? Does it make one feel safer? Is it an aphrodisiac?
I have to know. What is the appeal?…..other than knowing that you can kill someone with it?
It isn’t just a “MIGHT” thing. Consider the grenade launcher. Is it conceivable that a law-abiding citizen might use it for completely safe and reasonable purposes? I suppose. But we are all better off with laws that restrict the manufacture, sale, and posession of these weapons. Why? Because it’s more than just a “might” thing that someone might use that grenade launcher to hurt other people.
So we, as a liberal society, have decided that the incremental restriction placed on those who might like to enjoy shooting grenades out on the farm on a Sunday afternoon should be sacrificed so that we can try to limit their availability to less upstanding citizens who “might” use them in other ways.
In short, the tool makes a difference. A person can do a lot more damage with the right tool. And some tools are only made for killing people.
“People have killed other people with every tool available since the dawn of time. It’s not the tool, it’s the person.”
True, but I would have a more difficult time killing another human being with a tire iron than I would with an ASSAULT WEAPON!
Penis envy. Apparantly men can have it, too.
I have been biting my tongue (and held back my fingers) until now.
There are currently more weapons laws on the books than anyone needs.
All you need to do is actually enforce them.
You REALLY want to stop killings?
Then execute the murderers in a reasonably swift fashion.
The punishment that is given shows what society holds as the value of a human life. If a human life is only worth a dozen years in jail, then there will be those who see it as a fair trade. If a society truly holds the value of a life to be that of another life, I believe you would see a dramatic drop.
Don’t say “We already have a death penalty” – you have to actually USE it to say you have it. Just like enforcing the existing laws on guns.
If there are moral objections to taking another life then enforce life with no parole in solitary with minimum rations or hard labor. Something that is distasteful and much worse than we have now.
There are “real” assault weapons (full auto) that are smuggled in and sold. These are already illegal – no need for more laws.
I do have to respond to some of the earlier comments about clips & reloading.
I believe in personal experience as a great teacher.
Since David spends part of the holidays with a “gun nut” I’ll try to educate him in this specific area a little more.
David – next Thanksgiving, remind me to take my speed loaders along.
They let me reload that six round .357 magnum revolver we shoot in about 2 seconds. It is all a matter of practice. I used to be really good at it.
No clip, just 6 pre-positioned rounds.
Clips can be switched very quickly. You get to time me on the little Ruger .22 pistol next time.
Next time we shoot trap, I’ll let you grab the barrel after we shoot 3 quick rounds on the 20 gauge. Without gloves you will find it very warm.
The pistols
Shooting in low light conditions – This is something everyone should master. If you have a home invasion you have to defend against, it is highly possible to be in a low light situation.
“Assault weapons bans” are exactly as stated above – scary looking gun bans. Real full autos are already banned unless you have a license that requires FBI investigation and fingerprinting.
(I once looked into what I need to do to buy an Uzi full-auto, but decided it was too much hassle)
But then, all us Pennsylvanians that come from rural towns are know to be bitter and cling to our guns… :-)
The best you can do is penis jokes? Pathetic. Not that I should expect better.
Recently a man walked into a insurance agency, doused the people that worked there, including a pregnant woman and set them afire, killing three. Not too long ago a man filled up a rental van with fertilizer and committed the worst act of terrorism on US soil to that point. One can easily make a nail bomb with a 2 liter bottle, some metallic shrapnel, aluminum foil, and standard household chemicals. In fact, if you’d like, take some powdered pool chlorine and mix it with Coke and throw the concoction near an air vent and kill a lot of people quickly if you’d like. You’ll be releasing near pure chlorine gas.
And yes, David, I say MIGHT because it rarely happens. In fact, the 2004 CDC data clearly shows that only .000374% of ALL firearms in the US were used in homicide (justifiable as well as murder). Here’s the numbers for you to fact check me on that if you’d like.
So you’re the one trying to stop a problem that doesn’t really exist by banning items that are rarely used and poorly defined. You keep saying ban ASSAULT WEAPONS yet you cannot even define what an assault weapon is.
And, in the 214 years of US history where guns were allowed in school, there were 14 school shootings. Since 1990 when the law was passed, there have been 80. All because some uneducated anti-gun person like yourself thought it’d be a good idea to ban things that never were a problem to begin with.
Here’s a great test to see how much new gun control you think is necessary
Oh good lord. Why don’t you people educate yourselves before writing your little articles?
“From what you understand” are the typical talking points provided by groups like the Brady Campaign who intentionally try and confuse semi-auto rifles w/ military grade firearms. The only thing that makes an “assault weapon” are the scary looking features that people like you have no clue about except what you see on TV and badly made action movies.
Since you’ve been relegated to penis jokes. I take it that you admit you’re pretty much out of material?
“And yes, David, I say MIGHT because it rarely happens. In fact, the 2004 CDC data clearly shows that only .000374% of ALL firearms in the US were used in homicide…”
False logic. How many MURDERS were committed in 2004 with the use of a gun, assault weapon or otherwise. That minuscule percentage may have something to do with the unbelievable amount of guns available in the US. Just sayin….
“And, in the 214 years of US history where guns were allowed in school, there were 14 school shootings.”
Are you serious with this statistic, Robb Allen? What was the population of the US during that historical span? How many guns were available in that historical span?
Seriously, if you are going to come with statistics, at least come correct…
“Since you’ve been relegated to penis jokes. I take it that you admit you’re pretty much out of material?”
Or, pretty much making light of the kooks in our society that think they need an assault rifle to protect themselves……
Someone answer the question: Why do you need an assault weapon? And please, give me something better than taking out a coyote at long range.
First of all, there is no justifiable liberty. Absolute liberty is the starting point. Complete freedom to do whatever you want is the beginning.
In order to maintain social order, we begin to construct justifiable rules, or laws, which form the basis of our social interactions. These laws must be crafted to permit the greatest freedom while providing a known set of rules to let people know when they have crossed the line, and to provide for a legitimate means of exacting a toll for crossing that line.
We do not have justifiable liberty, no such concept exists within the US Constitution. Restrictions placed upon liberties are done so under only the tightest of scrutiny and guidelines. The limits of free speech only exist as libel, slander, and inciting harm (crying fire in the theater, publicly calling for the murder of homosexuals, etc.).
Limits of gun ownership should also be so narrowly tailored. The primary function of a weapon is what must be considered, not the look or features. A nuclear weapon is for mass destruction, a rocket launcher is for destroying armor, a grenade is for affecting a wide area through various means (flash/bang, shrapnel, concussion, etc.). All of these items have limited civilian utility and controlling access to them is understandable and conceivably justifiable.
A firearm, however, has greater utility, and thus it’s limitations have to be examined more narrowly. A full auto weapon, while fun to shoot, has limited utility for hunting or self defense (although it would be damn handy if we got invaded). The key word here is Full Auto. That is the feature that makes the weapon different from a civilian weapon. A full auto weapon has a significantly different functionality and purpose from a semi auto weapon. Barrel shrouds, pistol grips, etc. do not change the operation of a weapon. They may allow for greater comfort or control, or aesthetics, but the do not affect the functionality of the weapon, or how effectively it can be wielded.
Since such features add little to the potential for harm, what is the point of banning them except to further limit our liberty? Should we ban the internet because it allows hate groups an easy way to publish their bile without having to convince a publisher to print it, or raise the funds to print it themselves? Is such an act worth the loss of liberty? Does such an action open the door to further loss of liberty? Where do you draw the line?
I say that when it comes to owning a firearm, banning features that add little to the overall potential for harm while allowing a user some better comfort and control (and when you are shooting, more control is better, always, I do not want to hit someone innocent if I am defending myself) is pointless and a useless distraction.
And gino, have you ever fired a gun? If so, ever fire a Hunting Rifle versus an AR style weapon? I have, and such features don’t make it any easier to kill a person, or fire the weapon. They only give me more comfort and control.
Ah, the classic “Need” argument to be thrown in w/ the usual insults. Are you saying that what we own should be limited to what we “need”? When you can come up w/ a concrete definition of what an “assault weapon” is, then you might have room to talk. Until then I expect nothing more than the usual ad hominems and other logical fallacies that are the SOP of the uneducated hoplophobe.
Gino – Do you mean “scary looking gun” or full-auto weapon”?
If you mean “scary looking gun” then:
Why do you need a fast computer?
Why do you need anything faster than a Pentium I?
Why do you need a convertible?
Why are all cars not just painted black and have the same exact features?
Why do you need digital TV?
Why do you want clothes that look different?
Answer: Personal aesthetic preference because that is the only difference.
If you mean “full auto” then the answer is: They are ALREADY illegal for the average citizen so you can’t get them legally anyway.
“They only give me more comfort and control.”
So, a higher level of “comfort and control” doesn’t make it easier to kill a person? I would think it would.
Some of the students I teach at the high school level also agree that assault weapons are better. “More bullets, more brains”, was a comment that came up during a recent classroom discussion.
Obviously you’re teaching special ed.
Something from very early in this blog responses that I felt the need to expound on for educational purposes and historical interest.
Someone wondered why the NATO round is a smaller caliber than most deer rifles and has less kill effectiveness. It is a light round that actually has a propensity to tumble in flight.
Here is the real reason it is a military round.
When in combat and you kill an enemy, you take one soldier out of the fight against you.
When you wound an enemy, you take 2 or 3 out of the fight – those extras are the ones used to evacuate the wounded soldier for care.
The fewer people firing back at you, the more likely you are of winning a battle.
Just thought that was something that might be of trivial intrest to someone someday…
Geezer,
Don’t forget the increased strain on logistics (assuming the enemy forces actually care about their wounded).
thirdpower,
Obviously, I’m teaching in the ghetto.
And you gun clowns have no idea the impact guns (automatic, semi-automatic, fully-automatic) have in that community.
However, I expect ignorant responses from gun-toting-freaks…..
Oh I do have an idea. However it’s not the legal firearm owners that are committing the crimes occurring in those communities (where firearms are usually MORE restricted BTW). Perhaps the fact that most “ghettos” have a graduation rate hovering around 50%, songs like “cop killer” abound, and “Stop Snitchin’” is a (sub) cultural standard might have more to do w/ it.
Of course considering the high quality responses you’re providing, the graduation rates aren’t surprising.
Now thirdpower – you are starting to sink to his level with the personal attacks (Albeit without an assault weapon).
Gino – thirdpower beat me to the response – the vast majority of those guns are already illegally possessed. Just enforce the laws that exist.
As well as undo 40 years of the “Great Society” that destroyed the structure of the urban community. (But that is another blog subject)
“Consider the grenade launcher. Is it conceivable that a law-abiding citizen might use it for completely safe and reasonable purposes? I suppose. But we are all better off with laws that restrict the manufacture, sale, and posession of these weapons. Why? Because it’s more than just a “might” thing that someone might use that grenade launcher to hurt other people.”
Sweet Mother of God. Do you even know what a grenade launcher is? Look at this link. The fourth rifle down has a grenade launcher on it. I’d like to know if you can find it. There’s no way to misuse that thing, unless you’re actually in possession of grenades, which 1) aren’t available and 2) would require a $200 tax each to legally possess. That’s exactly the kind of thing that was banned in the original ‘94 AWB. Taking that particular rifle, dropping it into a stock with a pistol grip, and then swapping out the magazine with a detachable system would have been a felony because it has a totally useless “grenade launcher” on it.
So, where’s the grenade launcher the Yugo M59/66? Hint: It’s not the shoulder thingy that goes up.
For bonus points: How in the heck are you going to hurt somebody with it?
Thank you MadRocketScientist for expounding on that point far better than I could.
“So, a higher level of “comfort and control” doesn’t make it easier to kill a person? I would think it would. ”
If I was bothering to take my time and aim all my shots, a greater degree of comfort and control would provide me a slight boost in accuracy and endurance. If I was hunting, or target/competition shooting, or if I was in a running gun battle over the course of a few hours or days, that might make all the difference. For just a few minutes of criminal shooting (the typical length of time needed for police to respond and begin returning fire), such features add nothing, unless the user is a trained soldier who understands how to use such features.
“Some of the students I teach at the high school level also agree that assault weapons are better. “More bullets, more brains”, was a comment that came up during a recent classroom discussion.”
Which goes to show that these kids have learned everything they know about firearms from watching the TV or listening to the local thugs. They idolize the weapon because the TV idolizes the weapon. Think about it, whenever you see an EBR on TV or in the movies, either it is in the hands of a cop or soldier, or a thug/criminal, rarely in the hands of a law abiding citizen defending themselves or hunting (Tremors being a rare exception).
Since I doubt your kids worship at the alter of the cop or soldier, and instead think that a life of thuggery is a good idea, then of course they are going to associate what they see in the media with what they percieve as the way things are on the street. And I doubt any of your kids think that they are going to get such weapons at the local gun shop, they know they are going to buy them illegally on the street.
I would think a teacher would have an easier time drawing that conclusion.
“Oh I do have an idea.”
Actually, considering your inane responses and after a quick glance at your blog, I would say that you indeed have no idea. Does your rather limited knowledge of rap music give you an idea?
“Of course considering the high quality responses you’re providing, the graduation rates aren’t surprising.”
Again, considering that response, you have no idea. It’s nice that you think you have an idea, but you don’t.
Back to the point. Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon?
Can anyone, clearly and succinctly, answer that question?
“And I doubt any of your kids think that they are going to get such weapons at the local gun shop, they know they are going to buy them illegally on the street.”
And adding to the naivety of that the majority US citizens have regarding guns and the ghetto…..
MadRocketScientist, I want to address your constitutional and political theory issues that you raised a few comments back. My expertise is not with hands-on technical knowledge of guns, but I more than make up for it with interest and knowledge about the constitution and political theory. By the way, this is a much more relevant issue than the various accoutrements that might be added to a weapon. That line of argumentation is becoming rather circular.
“Absolute liberty is the starting point.”
Actually, that is incorrect. There is no such thing as an absolute liberty, and there never has been. Not in America or in any other country in history. All individual rights are balanced against the rights of others and of society as a whole. What we do have is the presumption of liberty in a democracy like ours. I am a fierce advocate of this philosophy when it comes to civil liberties. The government should not be given a blank check to exert power over individuals. However, when that power is justified for the greater good, then the government may abridge an individual’s liberty.
“Restrictions placed upon liberties are done so under only the tightest of scrutiny and guidelines.”
Once again, this is incorrect. The Supreme Court has several different levels of scrutiny that it employs when constitutionally reviewing laws that federal or state governments have enacted. The highest level, strict scrutiny, is only applied in rare circumstances when the most essential and fundamental rights are in jeopardy. This standard has never been applied to the Second Amendment and there is no way that the Court will completely shift direction with the current case before it regarding the D.C. gun ban District of Columbia v. Heller.
Usually, when a statute is challenged on Constitutional grounds, it is measured against the rational basis standard of review. This allows the law to stand as long as it can be justified rationally. The state merely has to show that the law furthers a legitimate state interest in a rational way.
The government certainly has a legitimate interest in limiting the availability of dangerous products of any kind, especially weapons that have the potential to kill large numbers of people. In fact, this kind of public protection is the most fundamental reason why governments exist in the first place. A revamped AWB would also meet the rationality prong of the test because it would specifically identify a subset of weapons that can be limited for a greater societal good. There have been a handful of landmark cases in the Supreme Court’s history that might help shed some light on how this country views “the right to keep and bear arms:”
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) - The Second Amendment guarantees states the right to maintain militias, but does not guarantee the individual right of gun possession.
U.S. v. Miller (1939) - Miller was arrested for transporting a sawed-off shotgun. The Court said “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument [as a sawed-off shotgun].”
Lewis v. U.S. (1980) – This case dealt with a federal gun control act, and the Court said “These restrictions on the use of firearms… do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties… The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ’some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”
You guys fit the typical gun grabing, liberal profile. You keep repeating your point without any facts or studies to back yourself up and hope somebody will believe you. However, us “gun-toting-freaks” have provided logical reasonings and several statistics (found on the CDC website, I might add) to support our conclusions. I would stick around to have a discussion, but Robb and Madrocketscientist have said enough to convince any “reasonable person”, like you claim to be.
Gino: When you can concretely define what an “assault weapon” is, you may have some standing. Otherwise all you have are the usual insults.
US V Cruikshank: No, it restricted the right of marching w/o a permit. Nothing about individual ownership.
US V Miller: The question was to the militia purpose of the sawed off shotgun. Since there was NO defense present, they were not given the examples that short-barreled shotguns were regular issue for decades.
Lewis V US: Once again w/o defining what firearms had “’some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”
Are you now making the argument that the citizenry have the right to military grade firearms?
Can you guarantee w/ absolute certainty that SCOTUS will not apply strict scrutiny to the case? Do you know what the outcome will be?
Once again, when you can define succinctly what an “assault weapon” is (try not using Brady talking points when doing so, it makes you look dim) you may actually have some standing for an argument.
Precisely. Look at the laws that restrict the First Amendment: they illegalize actions that impede the rights of others.
However, when it comes to firearms ownership – and, for that matter, the possession of any inanimate object, be it a gun, car, or a Marijuana cigarette – the mere possession of a piece of metal itself does nothing to infringe upon the rights of any human beings. Yes, the act of killing someone using a firearm is illegal, as it is using any other object (and, by the way, murders took place even before modern humans existed, so it’s not like they suddenly appeared with the invention of the Kalashnikov in the ’40s). So, we prosecute the perpetrator of the crime, regardless of whether they used a semiauto AK clone, a revolver, a baseball bat, or their bare hands. How is any one of those particular methods any more evil than another?
My mistake, I was thinking of Presser. Cruikshank regarded the fact that the BOR was intended originally as a restraint on the Federal Gov’t:
The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging “the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.
“Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
-Tenche Coxe
I think we can all agree that the Founding Fathers did not mean ” National gaurd”, when they said “well regulated militia”, because the Constituition was writen over a century before the first national guard was created.
Gino – “Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon? ”
I will respond with another question. Why does anyone need Satelite TV, a different pair of shoes for every outfit, or leather seats in their Mercedes?
Because they have the money, and will not hurt anybody with those things. Likewise, I will not hurt anybody with my EBR. They only ones who will are criminals, and they will not follow any AWB put in place either.
I don’t NEED to own an assault weapon any more than you NEED to own a computer you fucking troll.
gino asks the all too familiar infantile question ” Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon?” with the typical superiority complex.
People NEED, as you put it, to own an “assault weapon” to defend themselves from smug self-righteous authoritarians like you gino. As you show, you think you know everything and are the type of person who gets people killed by your actions, policy, and attitude. The reason people need assault weapons is to keep themselves alive when all other options have been removed. The further away from their enemies, like you, decent people can remain the safer they will be.
The world is not, nor has is EVER been, the utopia you wish it to be. The policies you support have led to genocide and millions of deaths in the 20th century alone. If you are indeed a teacher I can tell you one thing, I fear for the future.
“Gino: When you can concretely define what an “assault weapon” is, you may have some standing. Otherwise all you have are the usual insults.”
Quickly re-loaded, bullet propelling devices.
Therefor, more people can be killed at a quicker rate.
Now, why do you need an “assault weapon”?
Gudis,
As I’m sure you’re well aware, this is a standard meme of those who need to blame firearms for all of society’s ills. They ask us why we “need” an undefined (except in their own mind) object and then complain when we ask them why they need some other object. “It’s not the same thing” they cry. And then repeat the usual anti-gun platitudes no matter how false or misleading.
Watch. Gino will never answer what an “assault weapon” clearly is but will continue w. more insults and ad hominems.
So gino has just proclaimed every firearm as an “assault weapon” along w/ a non-sequitur. I can reload my split breach shotgun “quickly”. Do you consider that a “Concrete definition”? If you do, that’s pretty sad.
Well gino, one of the reasons I “need” a firearm is for home defense, target shooting, collecting, and varmint control.
Of course now you’re going to claim that none of things are “necessary” along w/ some sort of moving the goalpost on his definition of “assault weapon”.
Hmm… you know what fits that description? The M1 Garand, which was the standard infantry rifle of the US Armed Forces during the Second World War, and hardly an “assault weapon.”
I don’t think you’ve noticed parts of quite a few recent comments. You see, if we based all of our laws on what people “need”, we’d all be living in 800-square-foot apartments and driving cars with two-cylinder engines, but we aren’t now, aren’t we?
Gino will also continue to ask why anyone needs an “assault weapon”, though he/she has been givin satisfactory answers several tmes.
“I don’t NEED to own an assault weapon any more than you NEED to own a computer you fucking troll.”
Computers don’t kill people. Guns kill people.
“…you think you know everything…” I don’t think I know everything. I’m just positive that I’m far more educated, intellectual, and informed than you are.
“If you are indeed a teacher I can tell you one thing, I fear for the future.”
Yes, because it would be far better for you gun owning academicians to educate the youth of this country, especially in the ghetto….
Chupa:
They’ll never be satisfactory as gino has the unwaivering faith of the believer and will never be convinced otherwise, no matter the reality.
“Computers don’t kill people. Guns kill people.”
See. Did I call it or what.
“I’m just positive that I’m far more educated, intellectual, and informed than you are.”
Really? You haven’t shown it w/ you knowledge of firearms.
Murder is, in essence, a violation of someone’s right to life. Computers can be used to write and distribute viruses, which can infringe upon, say, a blogger’s right of free speech if their computer ends up infected. Sure, it can be argued that life is more important than free expression, but that’s really irrelevant, because both are violations of someone else’s rights, and you can’t determine which rights deserve more protection than others based solely on logic.
A computer can be used to destroy someone’s life, incite violence, slander, or invade the privacy etc. of thousands of people. Why should someone not be licensed to have such capabilities?
Additionally, on the “gun kill people” comment: I personally haven’t killed anyone with my .22 caliber rifle, and it’s a pretty safe bet that nobody else here has ever killed anyone with their guns, so that’s not exactly an absolute, Gino.
“Gino will also continue to ask why anyone needs an “assault weapon”, though he/she has been givin satisfactory answers several tmes.”
Gino is a masculine name, and you need to check your spelling before responding. “givin” and “tmes” are not English language words.
But, then again, you all should be teachers.
By the way, do you know what chupacabra signifies in the Spanish language?
Why do “goat suckers” need guns?
Cruikshank – You are right that this case was not primarily a Second Amendment issue, but it is one of the earliest (maybe the earliest?) mention of that Amendment in Supreme Court jurisprudence. And that is what the Court said about it. You can find the full text of the decision online.
Miller – This is the only case to really address the Second Amendment head on, so it is obviously the most important. You can read the case yourself and decide. I have read pamphlets and propaganda from both sides trying to spin this decision, but the objective sources I have found and the case itself show the Court’s disposition against the allegedly “fundamental” right to keep and bear arms. The Court rejects that very argument, requiring that the weapon under consideration must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… [and that it] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” That provides several hurdles before this “fundamental” right can be recognized. Under this standard, there is no way that private citizens owning TEC-9s or Uzis or AR-15s would be seen as Constitutionally protected. One of the biggest reasons that private possession of these kinds of weapons is now completely irrelevant to the purpose of maintaining a well organized militia is that our militias (Nationa Guard) are not BYOG anymore. No private ownership is necessary, even for the weekend warriors.
That isn’t to say that private individuals shouldn’t be allowed to possess any guns, only that they cannot claim some Constitutional right to do so.
Can I guarantee that strict scrutiny will not be used? Yes. I bet it won’t even be mentioned in any of the concurring or dissenting opinions. The reason is because the Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment as a fundamental right. There is over a century of precedent dealing with this issue directly and peripherally, but none of them even hint at something resemblign a “fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” The Court doesn’t just invent fundamental rights like that out of nowhere (and don’t even say privacy, because that is all over the precedents before Griswald).
On the definition issue: I never claimed to be a technical expert on the details of gun characteristics. I do think that such a category exists and that it is possible to define. I really wouldn’t know the best way to isolate the weapons that are primarily designed for “assault” purposes (for killing human beings) and how to separate those from the weapons that can be used for the legitimate purposes of hunting and self-defense. I would imagine that some combination of physical characteristics could help tightly define this law to help protect society while limiting the marginal loss of liberty to the population (even the NRA members). I don’t know what the Brady talking points are, I really don’t. I hesitate to even propose a set of definitions because your collective technical knowledge obviously outweighs my own. The real debate, though, is not a technical one. It is a legal debate, and those in favor of some sort of AWB are winning that debate. The technical details can be worked out later on, and it is foolish to think otherwise.
Let me reiterate this: I am not an anti-gun person. I am fine with guns. I am fine with people having lots of them and using them for legitimate, safe purposes. But I also see how individual possession of weapons must, at some point, come into conflict with society’s need for security. Some say that the line between the two is only reached with stealth fighters and missile launchers, and some say that any guns are a threat to society. I think that it is a reasonable line to draw it with the to-be-defined category of “assault weapons,” or those weapons designed with the purpose of attacking other human beings. It is not an unreasonable position.
Oh are we going to play the “spelling nazi” now? Are your claims that weak you are resorting to that pathetic ploy?
To paraphrase a little, as I don’t quite remember the exact quote: “Those who would sacrifice precious liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” – Benjamin Franklin
The computer analogy could fit with a bit of tweaking, play along:
Computer programs themselves can accomplish a lot of good, or a lot of bad. Some are designed to be good, but can be bad, and some are just designed to be bad. If a program is designed to be malicious (a virus), then I think that society is justified in limiting the creation and distribution of that program because that particular type is specifically designed for malicious purposes.
Guns can accomplish some arguably positive ends, and certainly some negative ones. However, there are guns out there that are purely designed for inflicting mass casualties and cannot be justified as hunting or self-defense weapons. “Assault weapons” is a handy category to define these kinds of weapons. Like the virus that is specifically designed for chaos and cannot be justified, these weapons should be restricted and controlled.
This isn’t to say that because the malicious potential exists that all guns or all programs should be banned. But there comes a point at which we would be naive to think that instruments and tools are completely independent of their purpose.
Joe, I have to hand it to you. I’ve never been on the receiving end of that quote.
If you seriously think that the government is never justified in abridging individual liberty for a greater societal safety, then you are crazy. But I don’t think you are. I think you just don’t want this particular liberty to be abridged. So maybe we can just ignore the over-the-top rhetoric.
Abridging individual liberty for societal security is the entire premise of the social contract. Everything from speed limits to laws against murder serve the greater utilitarian purpose for society at the expense of individual liberty.
You’re contradicting yourself. First you quote Miller (which I have read in it’s entirety plus the earlier appellate decisions):
“some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… [and that it] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
And then go on to say that ordinary military equipment would not be covered.
How do you justify that?
There is a century of precedent that was based on a case w/ NO DEFENDANT and is completely opposite to original intent. By precedent, the gov’t can confiscate your land w/o confiscation for sale to private enterprises and the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect you. Do you agree w/ those precedents as well?
By the way, you may want to read up on the federal militia statute:
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
As well as the constitutions of the majority of the State Constitutions.
The “unorganized” militia was last called out during WWII. They DID bring their own arms.
So far you have yet to define what an “assault weapon” is nor how it is more dangerous to society than the majority of other firearms. All you’re using are anti-gun platitudes to defend the position. They are not “missiles” or stealth aircraft. They are semi-auto rifles and handguns that “look like” some military firearms or are just scary to the uninformed. The “Category” of firearms you refer to were renamed by the anti-gun lobbyists because their earlier designation as “sporters” wouldn’t be able to be banned. Here’s what Josh Sugarmann of the VPC ( one of the originators of the term) has to say on it:
“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons�anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun�can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. ”
The legal debate is one of technicalities. Firearms are machines. To define them is to make a technical description.
David,
I’m going to ask you a series of questions. They are of a technical nature. Please answer honestly and we’ll work on some education.
Do you know the difference between Semi-automatic, fully-automatic, and select fire?
Miller also had standing as an individual. Under your comments David, the ONLY weapons that would be allowed would be assault weapons.
Society’s need for security should trump rights? Well, then lets start rounding people up because they look suspicious or have a different skin color that has been associated with previous terror attacks, or maybe drug dealing, and inner city crime. That’d be OK with you based on your statements, right? ROCKS are assault weapons, shoelaces, sticks, fire. I have a major problem with people not being able to understand that ANYTHING in the hands of someone intent on causing harm to another is an assault weapon. In NY a guy used circular saws. Cell phones and improvised explosives are assault weapons, and MAN wouldn’t I like to see cell phones gone from society. Sadly I’m not controlling enough, or deluded enough to force my will on others because of what MIGHT happen.
“Those who would sacrifice precious liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” – Benjamin Franklin
And Ben’s quote is applicable to today’s world, right?
That’s exactly what bugs me about historical quotes or constitutional arguments. The world we live in is much different than the ratified constitution of the late 1790’s.
“computers dont kill people.”
speaking as a retired ( med discharge )military man, I can -assure- you we’re using computers to kill people. and we’re using them to kill more people, faster, than -any- set of statistics you can dream up.
SWORD, Predator drones, Sat-tracking, FLIR, you name it, it’s got a computer in it.
We’re even computerizing assault rifles.
The entire -legal-, -law abiding- gun owning populace, have no desire to bother -anyone-. We simply want to be left alone to pursue our personal goals in peace. We have -no desire- to shoot -anyone-. We are aware however, that there are people in the world who want to hurt us and take our stuff, simply because we have it. Muggers, burglerers, and (Gods-of-your-choice-forbid-it ) the specter of a fascist police state.
If all guns were outlawed, and the government decided it needed a 90% tax rate to pay for all the social programs, what would you do? bear in mind, we’re already at 50 to 70%, depending on who you ask.
So, it boils down to, “we work hard, and dont bother anyone, and want to keep the stuff we worked so hard to get.” Using the best tool for the job seems sensible, yes? Well the best job for ‘keeping your stuff’ is a firearm.
why? because criminals fear them. They’re like bug repellant. If they know you -might- have a gun, and you -could- kill them, they -go away- and pick on someone who -doesnt- have a gun. simple yes? THe core of it is, by -having- a gun, we wind up -not having to hurt anyone-. We pro-gunners -like- this idea. I believe the ‘offical’ word for this is deterrent.
We do not live in a perfect world, there are violent, stupid people out there, who think that the best way to ‘get stuff’ is to take from -you- by force.
thoughts to ponder, no?
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
Ben’s quote is entirely applicable today and most likely will be tomorrow as well.
thirdpower, you needn’t be patronizing. I have a working knowledge of guns, but I am still convinced that this issue needs to first be resolved on the legal/philosophical level before the details of specific legislation are hammered out. The legal debate is not one of technicalities, the legal debate is this: does the government have a legitimate interest in limiting access to weapons that are more dangerous to society than beneficial to their owners.
I would say the answer to that question is yes. The government has an interest in banning lots of different weapons, and it is oversimplifying to say that the only realistic line that can be drawn is between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. That ignores a lot of other factors that point toward the overall purpose of the weapon and hence, the government’s interest in regulation.
“requiring that the weapon under consideration must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… [and that it] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” That provides several hurdles before this “fundamental” right can be recognized. Under this standard, there is no way that private citizens owning TEC-9s or Uzis or AR-15s would be seen as Constitutionally protected.”
DMM: How does an AR-15 *NOT* have “reasonable relationship” to the militia? It is the semiautomatic version of the primary small arm of the US Army – definitely “ordinary military equipment” by anyone’s standards! By the “reasonable relationship” and “ordinary military equipment” criteria that fans of Miller push so eagerly, so-called “assault weapons” – and, in fact, fully automatic true assault rifles – are *more strongly* protected than things like single-shot trap shotguns or bolt-action deer rifles or revolvers.
David, the thing is, liberty isn’t really being abridged when we, say, ban murder, as no human being really has the right to take the life of another human being except in certain instances (that is a matter up for debate, but it’s generally accepted that defense of one’s self or others is one of those times). Therefore, we are not restricting rights, but simply observing and enforcing them.
Now why, exactly, does the government need to restrict our freedoms to protect us from threats? Are not individuals themselves capable of judging whether they are safe or unsafe, and taking actions that they deem appropriate as a result? I was merely born in the country by chance, cannot yet go somewhere else at the age of sixteen, and certainly never signed any documents stating that the government can tell me to do whatever they want to if I’m not doing anything wrong.
Also:
Please point out to me a gun currently available in the United States that is marketed primarily to mass murderers. Hard to find, eh?
The fact is, the guns that you call “assault weapons” are often multipurpose rifles. Their ammunition tends to be cheaper than cartridges in larger calibers are, so they’re better for target practice and simple plinking, and in some cases – particularly that of the 5.56×45mm NATO/.223 Remington cartridge used by the AR-15 – have a lower risk of overpenetration than many pistol calibers, making them ideal for home defense, especially in suburban areas with dense housing, where a poorly-aimed shot could pass through several walls and hit someone next door.
If any branch of the military today were still BYOG, then you could maybe make a case for a reasonable relationship between the guns in your closet and a well organized militia. But… they are not.
Gino sez: “And Ben’s quote is applicable to today’s world, right? That’s exactly what bugs me about historical quotes or constitutional arguments. The world we live in is much different than the ratified constitution of the late 1790’s.”
Ben’s quote, and the principles embodied in the Constitution, are as correct and as relevant as they ever were. Technology may have advanced amazingly over the past 225+ years, but human nature has changed very little.
If human nature should change radically, *then* perhaps we can relegate the Constitution and Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to the dustbin of history as no longer relevant.
Almost all laws serve to limit individual liberty for some sort of greater good. Seriously, I am not making this up – this is in line with all of the social contract theories, including Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke. Especially from the Hobbesian point of view, in the state of nature, individuals have all rights (including the right to perpetrate violence on others, hence the quote “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”). People give up those rights, though, to join into a social contract because in the state of nature, there is nothing to provide for the greater societal good.
DMM: The militia *is* BYOG. I am the militia. You are the militia. Read 10 USC 311.
Never before has a conversation of this length interested me so little. David, you’ve created a toxic cocktail of guns, laws, and more than enough moral certitude from multiple directions that could humble even the hardiest drinker. Good thing we can have guns in DC now. I just read all these comments and now I want to go blow my brains out. Move on to more important things like Bittergate, Obama’s terrorist pals, and his all important bowling score.
David-
I wasn’t being patronizing. You have no idea how many individuals I’ve spoken to that don’t know the difference because of anti-gun propaganda. To declare that one semi-auto firearm is MORE dangerous than another because of appearance is the oversimplification.
I stand by my ground that the legal debate IS one of technicalities.
Is a Tec-9 MORE dangerous than a 1911A1? Why? Because of its appearance? They both function exactly the same.
Is a semi-auto AK clone MORE dangerous than an SKS? Why? They both function the same. The difference is appearance.
Is an AR-15 chambered in .308 MORE dangerous than a “traditional” hunting rifle chambered in the same?
AR-15’s BTW have become the predominant firearm used in competetive target shooting and varmint control. Semi-auto AK’s are excellent for home defense. The “purpose” of the weapon is what you use them for.
“If any branch of the military today were still BYOG, then you could maybe make a case for a reasonable relationship between the guns in your closet and a well organized militia. But… they are not.”
It is. The unorganized militia which I’ve provided the legal definition for. Would you like me to provide historical examples as well?
I think you should keep reading until you get to the subsection b-1: “the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;”
Remember, it is “well organized militia” that we are talking about (Second Amendment). That is also what Miller and the other Supreme Court cases reference, not some nebulous all-inclusive militia.
jkkuwitzky – Ha. Maybe these people will stick around and talk politics about some more salient electoral issues in the next couple of days. Somehow, though, I get the impression that this is a stampede of one-trick ponies.
Those model names illustrate the boundaries of my technical knowledge, but it is irrelevant. If they really are similar in design and purpose, but just with different numbers, then of course they should be placed in the same category. That is just not something that I am in a position to do in the comments of this post.
“Ben’s quote is entirely applicable today and most likely will be tomorrow as well.”
Yet, not so true in countries where guns are prohibited or controlled.
Hmmm….maybe the US is just dumber…
So you intentionally ignored the second part of the code as well as my reference to state constitutions? Who do you think makes up the militia? That would be the people. If you’re going to mix terms, you’re going to have to come up w/ justification to
do so.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Remember. In Miller, there was NO QUESTION as to Miller being part of the Militia. It was considered automatic.
“Those model names illustrate the boundaries of my technical knowledge, but it is irrelevant.”
It is entirely relevant when you’re trying to restrict things arbitrarily. You are now claiming that all semi-autos should be classified as “assault weapons” even though you admit you have very limited knowledge of them. You are basing your entire claims off of ignorance.
“Yet, not so true in countries where guns are prohibited or controlled.
Hmmm….maybe the US is just dumber…”
Another universal claim by gino. Care to provide evidence for your assertion or should we just take your word for it. Provide info on every country that has firearm laws.
We’ll wait.
I’m trying very hard not to be arbitrary here. I think that a panel of knowledgable, reasonable people could categorize the weapons that represent a unique threat to other individuals because of their design and they could be defined as “assault weapons.” I am not sure what factors these people would consider, but among them I am sure would be clip capacity, rate of fire, size, and other factors indicative of an especially dangerous weapon.
In contrast to this position, there seem to be many who make a very arbitrary conclusion that the only possible line of demarcation is that between automatic and semi-automatic.
I get that people feel very strongly about this issue and have intense emotional reactions against any perceived threat of “taking away my guns.” It is important to for both sides to suppress the emotional responses that cloud the rational debate that needs to occur regarding gun control. We need to consider each issue individually on its own merits and we need to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of society overall without committing to untenable absolutes.
This discussion was interesting, and is probably one of the longest and most developed comment strings that we have had on this blog, but at this point it seems to have stalled. The entire issue of gun control, along with the death penalty and abortion belong in the category of intense but irrelevant debates because none of them are really salient in the current election cycle and they are unlikely to move much at all in the forseeable future. I have enjoyed it, though.
David, the starting point of absolute liberty is theoretical, I did not mean to imply that utter chaos is a good idea. Laws are a necessary element of any society and any society will, by it’s very nature, impinge of an individuals liberty to some degree. We disagree on the how much impingement is acceptable.
I was, however, taking to task your assertion that we operate under the assumption of justifiable liberty. I don’t have to justify liberty except to try and roll back a police/nanny state. The very bedrock of our justice system does not operate under justifiable liberty, because suspects are innocent until proven guilty, i.e. the state has to justify removing your liberty, you are not obligated to justify why you should have it or keep it.
“The legal debate is not one of technicalities, the legal debate is this: does the government have a legitimate interest in limiting access to weapons that are more dangerous to society than beneficial to their owners. ”
Yes, they do, which is why individuals can not buy tanks and rocket launchers and grenades and new fully automatic weapons. I do not see how a semiautomatic weapon is so dangerous to our society that it needs to be limited on appearance alone? The humble revolver has ended countless more lives through crime than the AR style rifles have.
Gino,
I’m sorry, your writing is barely passable as proper English, and you have yet to form anything resembling a coherent argument. I don’t know where or what you teach to High School Students, but I certainly hope you show a greater talent for discussion in the verbal. I mean, I have a Master’s in Engineering Physics, and Engineers are not always known for eloquence and style in our writing, but I expect a whole lot more from a teacher.
David, whom I may strongly disagree with, is at least engaging in this honestly and with candor and a strong command of the written word. He brings informed and well constructed thoughts to the debate. And I’m glad thirdpower has joined this debate, because as lacking as David may be in the technical aspects of firearms, I am equally lacking in some of the finer points of legal precedent.
You bring, well, nothing.
Anyway, thirdpower, I gladly surrender the floor to a better informed man than I.
David, I may not agree with you, but I do think you are looking for an honest discussion, and I can respect that.
Good night all.
“I think that a panel of knowledgable, reasonable people could categorize the weapons that represent a unique threat to other individuals because of their design and they could be defined as “assault weapons.”
Well, that has excluded the legislators of the country and the states as they definitions they have provided have been contradictory, confusing, and arbitrary.
Let’s take CA for an example. Their AWB consists of firearms that don’t exist because they copied the names out of a catalog that had a few typos. Their police were instructed to “use their best judgement”. Kind of like “I know porn when I see it”. At least one other state copied that.
NJ has banned the Marlin Model 60 and several other tube fed. .22’s.
The recent federal AWB in the legislature has the description of a “barrel shroud”. What is a barrel shroud? Well the author of the legislation tells us:
“I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is, I believe it’s a shoulder thing that goes up.”
Uh huh.
It (and the direct copy in IL) also includes the “Dragunov SVD and copies” by name even though it falls under NONE of the “assault weapon” descriptors.
It’s not an “emotional response”. It’s a recognition of the goals of the anti-gun lobby in the US and the world. Find an anti-gun group that DIDN’T file a brief in support of the DC gun ban. The Brady Campaign is a member of IANSA whose stated goal is to allow only single shot shotguns to those who can prove they “need” them and after registration and licensing. The VPC admits to lying about “assault weapons”, wants to ban handguns, and to classify bolt action hunting rifles as “Sniper Rifles” , for them to fall under the 1934 GCA, and for their ammunition to fall under “armor piercing”. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry co-sponsored legislation that did the latter.
So tell me David, where is this body of learned men that will decide this? If they are educated on firearms, they know that “assault weapons” do not exist except in the minds of anti-gunners and the uneducated.
David, please don’t take this the wrong way because yes, you are being somewhat reasonable in your debating method unlike gino, but you’ve stated several times that you think people who have a better knowledge of firearms should make the rules. That would be us that have been here trying to debate you, yet you seem to want to ignore our expertise in the area.
The NASCAR analogy fits quite nicely here. You can take a POS 87 Geo Metro, put stickers all over it, low profile tires, a spoiler, and a large exhaust pipe on the back and still not be able to compete on the track. Yes, the tires and an enhanced exhaust system might give you a smidgen better control, and yes the stickers would look more NASCARish, but not enough to ban your car from being street legal because it really doesn’t make a difference.
The same thing goes for a rifle. Like a car, a rifle isn’t a single piece. You choose a stock, grip, action, barrel, caliber, etc. My AR-15 that I’m building right now is not a standard caliber (it’s 6.8 SPC rather than 5.56mm). I could also chamber it in .308, .300 whisper, .338 Lapua, all of which are much more potent rounds. All of which I could also buy in a wood stock rifle that functions exactly the same yet you wouldn’t “ban” because they have, in your mind, a legitimate purpose.
By defining “AR-15″ and “AK-47″ as assault weapons, you are saying the same thing as defining any car with stickers, low profile tires, and a spoiler as a race car.
Instead, we have laws that say you cannot drive in a specific manner that is dangerous to others. What we don’t do is ban cars based on how they look or how they “may” function.
Today, more people will die from alcohol related incidents than all week from firearms. Yet we do not run background checks on bar patrons. There is no NEED for anyone to impair themselves with alcohol, yet as a society we agree that the freedoms we hold dear come with risk. The only way to reduce (not remove) that risk is to limit freedom.
I posit that banning guns on looks (functionality is the same across even sporting models) does not reduce the risk enough to justify the violations of liberty. My stats are quite valid, even if gino isn’t able to comprehend nor even bother to read them. Very, very, very few of the weapons that are out there are ever involved in crime, and even a smaller amount are used in homicide. Thus, if only .000374% are a problem, lowering the number of a specific type of gun (which cannot even be defined) in society will have practically no effect.
Let’s take it to the next step. “Assault Weapons” are defined as X and magazines are limited to Y rounds. What then?
Are the existing ones going to be grandfathered? What extent of grandfathering? Sales/purchases through FFL only or can you only transfer it upon death, etc. ?
Will they be banned entirely and confiscated?
Remember, we’re talking hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of firearms and tens of millions of magazines.
When manufacturers change or remove the qualifying features and sales of semi-autos continue, will there be cries of “loopholes” and “violating the spirit of the bill” followed by calls for more bans (as happened w/ the Federal AWB and Brady Bill II)?
“there are guns out there that are purely designed for inflicting mass casualties and cannot be justified as hunting or self-defense weapons. “Assault weapons” is a handy category to define these kinds of weapons.”
This would be a wonderful argument, if there was a definition of assault weapon that classified weapons based on lethality and not features (I know you love this word) that don’t increase the killing value of a gun.
Look, here’s the bottom line. I have an AR that I use to have fun with. I target shoot with it, I take it onto state land and shoot cans, and varmint shoot with it. Would it be a valuable self defense weapon? Sure. Would I rather use my shotgun? Definitely. Is my shotgun more ergonomic because of it’s “pistol grip”? In my mind it is, but under the AWB I couldn’t have it because of that “pistol grip”. When you break things down, reasonably, you find that the AWB is simply feel good legislation.
“but among them I am sure would be clip capacity, rate of fire, size, and other factors indicative of an especially dangerous weapon”
It’s not about automatic weapons (rate of fire, unless your considering banning all semi auto’s, cause they all fire pretty quick), they are already heavily regulated. It’s not about size, cause I can carry a handgun around with much more ease, and I do, than an “assault weapon.” It not about clip capacity, cause handgun’s have high cap clips, unless of course you consider a handgun with a hi cap an “assault weapon” (by the way, the legislation does this — do you think handguns, normal handguns, are assault weapons?) And if you can name what other facts in the AWB that are “indicative of an “especially dangerous weapon” I’m all ears. My thought, they are already heavily regulated if it makes the weapon especially dangerous.
Finally, onto the second amendment issue and the history of 2nd amendment jurisprudence in the Sup Ct, I have only one thing to quote you.
Justice Kennedy, the swing vote at oral arguments in DC v Heller: “I suggest Miller may be deficient”
So you don’t think that the so-called “assault weapons” are useful to civilians, because they’re only for large-scale assaults, eh? The store owners in the 1992 L.A. riots didn’t have justification to use them against the large-scale assaults of looters on their stores?
And what about being able to resist a tyrannical government? (That’s the true purpose of the 2A, whether you believe it or not.) Last century, over 150 million people died at the hands of their governments. SCREW the government’s “compelling interest”!
And quit using the “National Guard as militia” canard! The NG is NOT the militia. WE are! The NG is part of the federal standing military, and was created 115 years after the 2A was written.
You people SO need to get a life!
“Today, more people will die from alcohol related incidents than all week from firearms. Yet we do not run background checks on bar patrons. There is no NEED for anyone to impair themselves with alcohol, yet as a society we agree that the freedoms we hold dear come with risk.”
Well put.
“I don’t know or understand crap about the lethality of any of the guns you speak of. However, it sounds like (from your description) that the use of an assault weapon certainly makes killing another human being easier and more convenient.”
This is why the pro-gun folks are so passionate about the facts. Ignorant statements like this say it all.
First of all, firearms are not designed to kill people; they are designed to fire cartridges. Firearms, especially automatic ones, are not as “convenient” for killing people as Hollywood would have you believe, because both have specific utility. Automatic weapons in the hands of a spree killer will just turn ammunition into noise. A 30 round magazine in an M16, on 3 round burst, will last about 2.5 seconds, making the auto fire utility pretty useless for mass killing.
Well aimed shots are generally more effective, which is why Cho had such a high death count. He didn’t use a militant looking rifle; he used a simple 9mm handgun and took well aimed shots. The average Soldier or Marine uses well aimed shots in combat, as opposed to the automatic rifleman who uses a belt fed weapon to deny an area to the enemy.
This idea of trying to quantify the deadliness of a firearm by it’s rate of fire or other attributes is just absurd.
I have said it before: the most deadly school killing in US history was done with a bomb. The most deadly domestic terrorist act in US history was done with a bomb. The most deadly terrorist act in US history was done using airplanes which were hyjacked using boxcutters. The most deadly killing spree in history by one individual was done with a sword.
To quote R. Lee Ermey: “”Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills.”
Second, none of the features of “assault weapons” have anything at all to do with “spray fire.” Not one modern army uses “spray fire” because it is ineffective. Automatic rifles like the M16 are select fire for a reason: to put multiple bullets into a target up close, and to put a single bullet into a target at a distance, which is precisely what makes it ideal for home defense.
“we are all better off with laws that restrict the manufacture, sale, and posession of these weapons.”
so ban them across the board, don’t allow governments to have weapons either
you know, lead by example…..
you can’t say one set of people with badges can have tanks and atomic bombs, but civilians (usually the ones who suffer most in war) can only have pistols.
justice, equality, rights? where are they in this equation?
“Although I respect the right to keep a gun like this for self defense, it still strikes me as incredibly stupid and unecessary.”
and so let’s use government to take away peoples “right” to self defense?
whether one agrees with “how” someone decides to protect oneself isn’t the point
it’s the choices and actions a person makes.
———————
reminds me of this:
(http://mises.org/story/2911)
This essay was originally published in The Freeman as “In the Vein of Intimacy,” 1920
“In the philosophy of public affairs, the liberal gets at his working theory of the State by the “high priori road”; that is to say, by pure conjecture. Confronted with the phenomenon of the State, and required to say where it came from and why it is here, the liberal constructs his answer by the a priori method”
……….
“The radical gets at his theory of the State by the historical method; by tracing back and examining every appearance of the State”
…………
“The liberal believes in the reality and power of political leadership; thus, again, he eagerly took Mr. Wilson [Woodrow] on his hands at the last two elections.
……….
The radical, on the other hand, believes that the State is fundamentally antisocial and is all for improving it off the face of the earth”
————————-
Lets just take the 20th Century as an example.
Who developed and used the Atomic bomb?
What organizations are responsible for the majority of deaths?
And who’s going to enforce a law that bans a measely little automatic machine gun owned by citizens? And how will that law be enforced?
So much for changing the world through education.
Speaking of the NRA.
I read this blog and Elrod’s blog from time to time, and I especially enjoy reading the comments. Though I don’t agree with him entirely, I think David is approaching the issue reasonably and logically.
That brings me to Gino. On Elrod’s blog, and here, you can always count on Gino’s comments to, well, suck. Let me put this in simple English for Gino: You are stupid. you have a false sense of moral superiority because you work in the “ghetto” (though i’m sure the offers you recieved from the private sector were staggering). The best thing I could ever say about your logic is that it’s flawed. You never, ever, know what you’re talking about. Almost everyone who comments on these blogs brings something to the table. Maybe Gino’s just “special”.
David, The bottom line is that an Assault Weapon is a fully automatic military weapon. To the vast majority of Americans, these are already illegal. The details and accoutrement’s added to them have absolutely no bearing on the lethality. None. Zip. Nada. Your weapons ban does nothing to change anything. Except maybe making you feel better.
Rifles, in general are only used in about 2% of crimes involving weapons. Again, an AWB will do what?
The Scary looking black rifles available to law abiding persons are no more an Assault Weapon, than a sharp black stone is an Assault Rock.
Firearms owners resent the fact that behind every, so called, rational gun control measure, is another and another and another. And we realize it won’t stop -Till they are all gone.
That’s not going to happen. When are you going to realize that lawful firearm owners are not the problem?
“The bottom line is that an Assault Weapon is a fully automatic military weapon.”
That is what this entire debate is about – how this category of weapons can best be defined to maximize liberty and protection. Just because you keep repeating this line does not make it so. There are more factors involved in determining the purpose of a weapon than just its rate of fire.
“The details and accoutrement’s added to them have absolutely no bearing on the lethality.”
I have wondered how so many of the extreme gun rights advocates can make this argument with a straight face. Of course these additional military-style features add to the lethality of a weapon. Why else would the military be using pistol grips and barrel shrouds and folding stocks, etc? Do you really expect me to believe that the military (and all the other militaries in the world) have chosen these elements for purely cosmetic reasons? The military does not use very slightly modified versions of these weapons because they look scary; they really are scary and they really are deadly. They are designed for killing people in a combat setting, and none of you have convinced me that there is a legitimate interest in people owning SAWs that outweighs the public interest in banning them.
“Rifles, in general are only used in about 2% of crimes involving weapons.”
That is a good point. I addressed this kind of thing earlier when I justified an AWB on the basis that it is narrowly tailored to address a dangerous product while still limiting the amount of liberty that is abridged. The reason isn’t because I or anybody else thinks that assault weapons are being used in a large percentage of crimes.
“Behind every, so called, rational gun control measure, is another and another and another.”
Your slipperly slope argument will not get any traction here. There is a reason why slippery slope is a fallacy. There is no historical or logical basis for asserting that an AWB would lead to any further ban on weapons. In fact, it is very much the opposite. An AWB shows a very limited, restrained, and targeted law that addresses a specific issue in a rationally-justified way. You may disagree with the rationalle and that is fine, but it is silly to say that it will lead to indiscriminate gun prohibition and confiscation.
Overall, most arguments in this thread have been against the specific way that the 1994 AWB defined “assault weapon.” I understand that the bill could have been written with more clarity and I acknowledged that in the original post. I hear the arguments that show how perhaps certain components of a firearm may not significantly increase the overall lethality. But one question still remains: what great harm will occur if these weapons are banned? There are others more practically suited for all of the legitimate uses I can think of. A future AWB would not eliminate or even impede any individual’s ability to defend him/herself or to lawfully engage in hunting. The slippery slope argument falls on its face, and all that we are left with is what I perceive to be an irrational fear that the government is trying to confiscate a person’s weapon that makes them feel powerful. I am still waiting to hear how terrible and unjust life would be under a real, comprehensive, better-defined AWB.
“That is a good point. I addressed this kind of thing earlier when I justified an AWB on the basis that it is narrowly tailored to address a dangerous product while still limiting the amount of liberty that is abridged. The reason isn’t because I or anybody else thinks that assault weapons are being used in a large percentage of crimes.”
So even though they aren’t being used in crime making them dangerous, you want to ban them anyway? Is that about it?
“There is no historical or logical basis for asserting that an AWB would lead to any further ban on weapons. ”
BS and you know it. I’ve already cited a case. Immediately after the Brady Bill (which included the AWB) went into effect, they started drafting Brady II which included hundreds more types of firearms on the banned list. California has since banned .50cals and handguns w/o non-existent “safety” features after their AWB.
If you don’t believe the gov’t will confiscate weapons, perhaps you didn’t pay close enough attention to Katrina when NG troops were federalized and used to do just that.
Since you can’t even define what an “assault weapon” is, you cannot make any claims on what would occur should a “real, comprehensive, better-defined AWB” be enacted.
“They are designed for killing people in a combat setting, and none of you have convinced me that there is a legitimate interest in people owning SAWs that outweighs the public interest in banning them.”
You just keep making my points for me. Who’s talking about regular ownership of fully-automatic firearms? That is not what the AWB is about. You claimed you knew the difference. Are you now making statements like this out of ignorance or are you (like the anti-gun groups) trying to be disingenuous and confuse the issue?
Well, you keep trying and keep missing the point.
Which will kill you if you get shot by it? A .223 bullet coming out of a Bushmaster AR-15 or a .223 coming out of a Ruger Mini-14 (nice, wood stocks, pretty stainless barrel – http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/ruger_mini_14.jpg)?
The fact is, nothing on the Bushmaster is going to make the bullet come out at any different speed.
Now, the military uses the same features for the same reason I told you up top. The collapsible stock makes it easier for me to pull in tighter if I need to navigate my house. The pistol grip gives me a slightly better grasp on the firearm so that I can maneuver around while pulling the barrel up and down (something not needed generally for hunting). The barrel shroud keeps my hands from blistering off the instant I fire a round (one rifle I have puts off so much heat after 3 rounds it becomes hard to see the sights).
“But one question still remains: what great harm will occur if these weapons are banned?”
But the question remains: what great harm will occur if we ban booze? Rights are such trivial things that should be squashed over a practically non-existent problem, right?
But if you want to ban them, ban them all. Meaning the cops, FBI, CIA, etc cannot have them either. If these weapons are too dangerous to exist in society, they are way too dangerous to provide to people who can abuse them under color of law. Would you like me to pepper you with dozens of stories from last year where police departments and the FBI lost or misplaced automatic firearms and the such?
Or, does being a cop grant you magical powers? Please, by all means bring up how much they train so I can rip that argument to confetti (my father is a cop. I see a gun range on the order of at least 50 times more a year than he does). The fact is that cops, CIA agents, etc. are all human like you and me. If you can’t trust me (not some nameless “other guy”) with a rifle that looks like what the military uses, then you cannot trust even the government.
Now, why don’t you push for stronger laws that punish those who commit violent acts and keep them behind bars instead of trying to punish me?
I did not put a smiley face in my post, it just showed up…
“Maybe some other time we can come back to the alternative energy issue, but so far we, like society at large, are drawn in by the temptation of the sensational over the real challenges that face our country.”
Translation: If we don’t agree w/ what you personally consider is important, we’re ‘bitter’, right?
Guess what? All the lights in my house are CFL, my bulk trash is less than 1 bag/month for a family of five due to recycling and composting, I’m actively designing industrial lighting that is 96% efficient at high wattages, and I drive a Prius.
I do my part for the environment.
You may notice that while firearms are the hot topic, it’s foundation is individual rights. To attempt to force me to rely on the gov’t for protection or to inhibit the ownership of my personal property because people are to scared or uneducated about them is an infringement on that individuality.
Clarification: when I typed “SAW” up above, I intended to use it as an abbreviation for semi-automatic assault weapon. I thought that was clear from the context. I did not intend to muddy the waters by bringing up automatic weapons as if they would be newly covered by an AWB.
“The collapsible stock makes it easier for me to pull in tighter if I need to navigate my house. The pistol grip gives me a slightly better grasp on the firearm so that I can maneuver around while pulling the barrel up and down…”
These delusions of mission impossible firefights unfolding inside your home make me laugh. This does not happen in real life, and so we are back to viewing those elements of the weapon as primarily serving the purpose of making the weapon appropriate for assaulting and killing other people.
“If you can’t trust me with a rifle that looks like what the military uses, then you cannot trust even the government.”
Of course I trust government-trained and employeed professionals more than I trust the average American who currenlty has access to assault weapons. I have met too many average Americans not to be skeptical of them. But that’s great for you and your personal shooting range skills. Time well spent, no doubt. If we were talking about banning assault weapons for everyone except responsible fanatics who log endless hours at the range like you, it would be a very different argument.
I am surprised you guys are still around here on this post after more than 24 hours and 118 comments. I’m impressed, too.
“So even though they aren’t being used in crime making them dangerous, you want to ban them anyway? Is that about it?”
That is not at all what I wrote, and that is not even close to being true. I did say that even though assault weapons do not account for a majority of the gun crimes committed in this country, it is still one specific category that can be targeted to help reduce the crime rate without losing large amounts of collateral liberty.
This USATODAY article about the end of the assault weapons ban was interesting. It says that authorities estimate that assault weapons comprise only about 1% of the 200 million or so guns in America. In a Justice Department survey of inmates, of whom 20% used guns in committing crimes, almost 2% used assault weapons. If I am putting some numbers together correctly, that means that although these assault weapons only make up 1% of the guns, they make up 10% of the gun crimes. Although the statistics might be slightly off due to sampling error or rounding, that seems to show that these weapons are extremely attractive to those who commit crimes with them.
We’re dedicated. That’s the point.
A “SAW” is a “Squad Assault Weapon”. A fully-automatic light machinegun used by the military.
A “Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon” is a semi-auto rifle that shoots one bullet at a time just like many other types of firearms, that look like some military firearms. You admitted earlier that you would include all semi-autos under “assault weapons” because you don’t know the difference between them.
I’ve read up on to many “government-trained and employeed professionals” who abuse their authority or are complete incompetents to put my absolute trust in them either. That’s going back again to this whole “individual” thing. To rely on and improve yourself.
I think I ran across the SAW as Semiautomatic Assault Weapon from the ATF website. But, hey, what do they know about firearms?
We’re not talking about individuals, here. Laws are not for individuals, they are for societies and large groups. As a large group, of course government-trained and employeed professionals are going to be safer handlers of dangerous weapons. Of course they are. Furthermore, they have a specific legitimate purpose in using them for law enforcement. As a large group, of course the average members of society at large are going to be less responsible with them, and they do not have a legitimate purpose.
This has nothing to do with relying on or improving upon myself. I don’t plan on owning anything like an assault weapon. This is about doing everything I can to make sure that the crazies and the criminals and the potential criminals around me do not have access to weapons that are more dangerous than they are useful for legitimate purposes.
“Although the statistics might be slightly off due to sampling error or rounding, that seems to show that these weapons are extremely attractive to those who commit crimes with them.”
And you think media spin and gang culture had something to do w/ that? When the criminals are imitating their heroes on MTV bragging about shooting cops, using their “AK” and beating their women?
The 1% estimate does not include the firearms produced after the ban w/o said features so they weren’t classified as “assault weapons”.
You have to look at your own numbers. “1%” = over 2 million firearms. It would be greater than 3 using the more recent changes in definitions. How many crimes were committed w/ them? Less than 1% of the total.
If you want to make an impact on crime, look at recidivism. 50% of murders are committed by individuals on parole or bail for a violent crime.
“Although the statistics might be slightly off due to sampling error or rounding, that seems to show that these weapons are extremely attractive to those who commit crimes with them.”
I would agree with David on that point.
“Now, why don’t you push for stronger laws that punish those who commit violent acts and keep them behind bars…”
I would also agree with Robb Allen on this point. Not only the ones committing the crimes, but especially the ones who provide the weaponry in an illegal fashion.
I do wish there were an AWB. I think it is feasible politically, but I don’t think it would put an end to the sale or trafficking of AW’s.
People could get alcohol during the prohibition years. people smoke weed today, and that’s illegal.
Perhaps a ban on the sale of AW’s would lead to a more deadly situation with an illegal underground trafficking battle. Much like the senseless deaths of thousands in the US over drug trafficking.
I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that for every action there is a reaction. I think that goes both ways on this issue, and it’s difficult to determine either outcome.
I still don’t understand the mentality behind keeping such firepower for personal defense, nor do I think it’s realistic that the government is going to forcefully subdue its citizens. I’ve lived and worked in a Central American country where such action was definitely realistic, but I don’t sense that in the US.
I do understand the 2nd amendment, but I think both sides interpret it quite differently.
Wow. This really is an endless debate!
“I think I ran across the SAW as Semiautomatic Assault Weapon from the ATF website. But, hey, what do they know about firearms?”
I’m in the military. I see SAW, I think SAW.
“more dangerous than they are useful for legitimate purposes”
Now you’re getting into subjectives again. You FEEL they are more dangerous. You think everyone should be restricted because you feel “they do not have a legitimate purpose.”
That is your OPINION. I’m not going to let your opinions determine my property rights.
What you are about is making sure NOBODY has access to firearms you think are scary.
Hell. You can’t even define what one is. Where do you get off trying to determine whether they’re “legitimate” or not?
thirdpower, I am not just talking about feelings or scary appearances and you know that. You can stop repeating that claim, then.
These guns were manufactured for military use and very slightly modified to pass as civilian weapons. Obviously, the definition for what a “military” weapon or an “assault weapon” is will be extremely technical, and I am not able to give you that level of technicality. But this is not a technical argument nearly as much as it is a legal and philosophical one. Civilians do not need these weapons for any legitimate purpose. You are delusional if you think the military does not use the most effective and dangerous weapons it can find. The weapons covered in my dream AWB would include all of those that are just very slightly modified from their original military design. You simply do not need that unless you are in a combat situation.
Without the “need” there, I realize that it is rash to jump right to the conclusion of prohibition (the alcohol analogy is ringing in my ear). But since there is no “need” to have these weapons, it allows the government a much lower standard (in legal terms, the rational basis standard of review) for enacting restrictive laws. Laws that prohibit or restrict access to assault weapons serve a legitimate societal interest because we all have a very strong interest in limiting the number and availability of these guns. If there was a kind of alcohol that was designed for the primary purpose of killing other people when you drank it, I would be all for prohibiting that. But until that is invented, we only have one category of alcohol and that is the category that can be responsibly and safely enjoyed in a legal manner, although it can be abused like anything else.
“The bottom line is that an Assault Weapon is a fully automatic military weapon.” – Please see line #2.
“To the vast majority of Americans, these are already illegal.” Do you not see that there already is an AWB? I can’t own one. Nor would I know where to buy one. And no, I never felt the need to have one since leaving the military.
“I have wondered how so many of the extreme gun rights advocates can make this argument with a straight face.” – Please don’t start. Why is it that with 20,000 gun laws in place now, anyone who opposes any more is “Extreme”?
“Your slipperly slope argument will not get any traction here. There is a reason why slippery slope is a fallacy. There is no historical or logical basis for asserting that an AWB would lead to any further ban on weapons.” – Please see what Illinois and Pennsylvania lawmakers proposed in just the last week or so.
“These delusions of mission impossible firefights unfolding inside your home make me laugh. This does not happen in real life, ” – Oh really? I have defended my home against armed intruders twice. No shots were fired on either occasion. But the perpetrators outnumbered me both times. A 6 shot revolver isn’t as comforting as you may think at times like that.
David, there will never be enough gun control for the anti gun people. You may be an exception and if so, that’s good. But banning a product that, crime wise, isn’t even a statistical blip because it shares some features to real assault weapons already unobtainable to the general public seems ……. Well, kind of extreme.
And opinions do matter, at least in a democracy they do. Your property rights are subject to thousands of regulations and restrictions based on the “opinions” of others codified into law.
As far as public opinion about the AWB? A National Annenberg election survey showed that two thirds of the public favored extending the ban in 2004.
In this country, you are in the severe minority, yet you think it should be your “opinion” regarding the AWB that carries the day. Interesting.
I think I am in the unique situation of being very much in the middle in the overall pro-gun vs. gun control debate. I don’t have a whole lot of emotion invested in either side, and I do not think it is even close to the most important issue in our political world today.
However, from my position in the middle, people on both extremes appear to be kind of crazy to me. On one extreme are those who want to ban all guns, even the ones that are specifically desinged for legitimate purposes. Wacko, pinko, hippies. On the other side are those who reflexively oppose any attempt at all to regulate the manufacture or sale of any type of gun on any basis. Psycho, frustrated, compensating nutjobs.
From the perspective of the middle, which apparantly the majority of Americans are also on this issue, something like the AWB makes complete sense. It is addressing a specific security risk without becoming overbroad. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can attack the AWB and not realize that they are approaching the far edge.
“These guns were manufactured for military use and very slightly modified to pass as civilian weapons. ”
“very slightly” being defined as a complete rework of its functioning parts.
“Obviously, the definition for what a “military” weapon or an “assault weapon” is will be extremely technical, and I am not able to give you that level of technicality.”
Because you are ignorant and refuse to be educated on the facts.
“But this is not a technical argument nearly as much as it is a legal and philosophical one. ”
And yet the law is completely about technicalities. A fact you keep ignoring.
“Civilians do not need these weapons for any legitimate purpose.”
Your opinion based off of ignorance.
“You are delusional if you think the military does not use the most effective and dangerous weapons it can find.”
And since we’re not talking about military weapons, you continue to be disingenuous.
“The weapons covered in my dream AWB would include all of those that are just very slightly modified from their original military design.”
Which would actually cover bolt action rifles and WWII semi-autos more than it would any modern semi-auto which has no functioning similarity to “military designs”. But since you admit you’re ignorant and don’t care, that really doesn’t matter now does it?
“You simply do not need that unless you are in a combat situation.”
And again we’re not talking about military weapons.
“Without the “need” there, I realize that it is rash to jump right to the conclusion of prohibition (the alcohol analogy is ringing in my ear).”
Yet you’re going to do it anyway based off of ignorance.
“But since there is no “need” to have these weapons, it allows the government a much lower standard (in legal terms, the rational basis standard of review) for enacting restrictive laws. Laws that prohibit or restrict access to assault weapons serve a legitimate societal interest because we all have a very strong interest in limiting the number and availability of these guns.”
All once again your OPINION. Not facts.
“If there was a kind of alcohol that was designed for the primary purpose of killing other people when you drank it, I would be all for prohibiting that. But until that is invented, we only have one category of alcohol and that is the category that can be responsibly and safely enjoyed in a legal manner, although it can be abused like anything else.”
And since semi-autos formerly known as sporters before they were renamed by the anti-gunners to fool the ignorant were NOT “designed for the primary purpose of killing other people”, this argument is a non-sequitur. Millions of people act responsibly and safely enjoy firearms that you can’t define. You want to punish them for the actions of a few criminals.
Gino, it’s endless because the facts contradict what you guys want to hear. You are confident that an AWB is politically feasible yet both Barack Hasselhoff Obama and Hilary Clinton are BOTH clamoring to show how much they love the 2nd amendment and don’t want to ban guns. Watch as they both squirm to court the NRA and never ONCE mention the Brady Bunch or Violence Prevention Center.
Dave – If I bring up examples of why certain features are useful in self defense, I’m some sort of fanatic. Never mind that you failed to answer my question (which is more “deadly” – getting shot with a Bushmaster AR or a Ruger Mini 14? Hint – they both fire the EXACT same cartridge). Never mind that there are legitimate uses, plus some people simply like them. How about my friend who is paraplegic? For him, the customizable stock and grip make the rifle much more controllable.
But, I see where you’re coming from. You don’t trust the average citizen with firearms. You must consider yourself quite above the common man to make that decision for them.
Fine. I don’t trust you to make decisions on what I can and cannot do. A rifle is relatively easy to hit your target with, regardless of configuration. Making laws is something that nobody can get a handle on, especially people who are grossly ignorant on the subject like you regarding firearms, and poor laws give us “Gun Free Zones” that aren’t gun free, and increased school shootings because it’s a safe bet you can kill unfettered until you’ve got only one round left to end your own life.
You’re right though, this conversation has gone on for quite a while. You can’t define something, when we help you call us nuts & fanatics or make penis references, when we show you over and over that NOTHING that was ever banned made a bit of difference, you still prattle on about how we should do SOMETHING! ANYTHING!!
The good news is there won’t be another ban. Heck, before the AWB went into effect, sales jumped through the roof – do you think it was people who were wanting to pay a lot for a rifle just to turn it in when the ban took effect? I wasn’t planning on purchasing a new rifle this year, but the prospects of more hassles with whoever is elected made it a prudent choice. Not that you’d risk shattering your preconceptions of gun owners, but if you were open minded you could hit up a few ranges and gun stores and ask them how sales are going. Lord knows my custom rifle is taking 6 weeks because business is so brisk.
My last comment (unless addressed directly) is that I’m glad this is a long thread and I’m glad Google is forever. I’m happy to have my comments up here and feel confident that most people who are ambivalent on the whole debate can see for themselves the truth in what we speak.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to get my daughters out of the bath and read them bedtime stories.
“I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can attack the AWB and not realize that they are approaching the far edge.”
Because as we have shown EVIDENCE FOR, the AWB is completely arbitrary in definition based off the ignorant fears and political agenda’s of anti-gun groups.
You think you are in the “middle”. You are closer to the “complete gun banners” by advocating bans on huge swaths of firearms that you don’t understand than I am to the “no regulation” types.
Think on that.
Now you’re just calling names. I am not ignorant just because I am unconvinced by your arguments. This may shock you, but most people are not convinced by the NRA message that assault weapons are just as safe and legitimate as every other type of weapon.
You cannot seriously say that the assault weapons that have been specifically identified are unrelated to their military counterparts. You cannot seriously claim that they have had a complete reworking of their functioning parts and that puts them in the same category as revolvers and normal hunting guns. Here are the first three specifically named assault weapons that I came across in the original AWB and a short description of each.
The AR-15: “The AR-15 is a lightweight, air-cooled, magazine fed, autoloading, centerfire shoulder-fired rifle. The original ArmaLite/Colt AR-15 was a selective-fire prototype submitted for consideration as a military infantry rifle, which was later adopted as the M16.”
The G36: “The G36 is a German 5.56 mm assault rifle, designed in the early 1990s by a team of engineers from Heckler & Koch GmbH (HK) and accepted into service with the German Armed Forces in 1995, replacing the 7.62 mm G3 automatic rifle.”
The AK-47: “It was one of the first true assault rifles and, due to its durability and ease of use, remains the most widely used assault rifle in the world.”
“Now you’re just calling names. I am not ignorant just because I am unconvinced by your arguments. This may shock you, but most people are not convinced by the NRA message that assault weapons are just as safe and legitimate as every other type of weapon.”
Ignorant means uneducated. You are uneducated on firearms. See your next paragraph.
“You cannot seriously say that the assault weapons that have been specifically identified are unrelated to their military counterparts. You cannot seriously claim that they have had a complete reworking of their functioning parts and that puts them in the same category as revolvers and normal hunting guns. ”
Yes I can. The internal workings of a select fire/fully auto weapon are completely different than a semi-auto firearm.
“Here are the first three specifically named assault weapons that I came across in the original AWB and a short description of each.”
The original AR-15 was adopted as the M-16. All further designs following based on it are semi-auto and generically referred to as AR-15’s.
Any semi-autos that LOOK LIKE G36’s or AK-47’s are generically referred to by those names. The internal functioning is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
The G-36 civilian is the SL8 and is substantially different from the G36, it has a different receiver and a fixed thumbhole stock with a cheek rest, which is integrated with the trigger group. The SL8 has a heavy profile, extended, 510 mm barrel that does not have a flash hider or bayonet lug.
The Civilian AK’s are usually SAR-1’s or WASR’s.
http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/sar-1.html
To “convert’ them to “fully auto” take machining tools and a serious modification of the sear pins that if not done properly can result in the rifle exploding when fired.
So. Tell me more about how they are only “slightly modified”.
Do not attempt to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time annoys the pig.
Because the difference between semi-auto and full-auto is not the only legitimate line of demarcation, nor is it even the most important element in determining what the purpose and functionality of a weapon will be.
I read anecdotally from several individuals who claimed that they could empty a clip on semi-auto in 5 seconds compared to 2 seconds on full-auto. Either one involves a lot of lead flying at somebody in a very short amount of time. “Slightly modified” is not my phrase, it is the phrase used by all kinds of people who know much more about this stuff than I do. If I am not mistaken, it is also a phrase used by those manufacturers to get people like you to buy it. After all, if we are being honest with ourselves here, that is the real appeal to these weapons for most enthusiasts. “It is just like the real thing that the military uses, with very small changes.”
All right, I am giving up on trying to get you guys to sing the tune of the AWB. You can stick around if you like, but I am not sure that there are any more aspects to this issue that we haven’t already beaten into the ground.
“I think that a panel of knowledgable, reasonable people…”
Ooh! Ooh!
I nominate Jeff Cooper (in memoriam), John Farnam, Randy Barrett, David Tubb, Sandy Froman, Oleg Volk, Tamara, Kim du Toit, Massad Ayoob, Larry Correia, George Hill, anybody from the CMP, Jerry Michulek…
Well, since you;ve taken your ball and went home, I’ll just leave a few quotes for you.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison
in response to this statement you made, “In this country, you are in the severe minority, yet you think it should be your “opinion” regarding the AWB that carries the day. Interesting.”
I offer this, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” -Thomas Jefferson
“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly,
while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
- Plato (427-347 B.C.)
…John Ross, Eugene Stoner, Say Uncle, Marko the Munchkin Wrangler, Zendo Deb, Team Glock, Lawdog, Zak Smith (The High Road), Team S&W, Bruce from Massachusetts, David Codrea, Steven Holbrook, Gabe Suarez…
My bad–Joe Huffman!
I know, I know, the post is arguaing trivialities.
But where does the “sensationalism” come from?!
Lets take a look at why centralized power is bad and guns are good.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/fame.html
Anyone notice anything of interest?
Remember folks, there is a reason the second ammendment is the 2nd!! ammendment. Not the first, not the last.
“Abridging individual liberty for societal security is the entire premise of the social contract.”
Um…in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is.
You’re asking (piffle–requiring!) us to cede the government some of our liberty. Is the government ceding anything back?
“Societal security”–lovely phrase.
Aside from the draft, and possibly the Manhattan Project, is there any government program that gets abolished?
Just askin’…
David,
The guns may look like military weapons, but they do not work like them, ask any gunsmith.
However, let’s talk about the reality, as Robb pointed out above. There are millions of military style weapons in civilian hands, so enacting a new ban would either require either a grandfather clause to allow existing owners to keep heir weapons, or it would require a violation of the 4th amendment in order to confiscate them all, which would require making millions of citizens into criminals unless they surrendered a weapon that likely cost them thousands of dollars.
Not very fair thing to do to people who have done nothing wrong.
Speaking of money, keep in mind that military style weapons cost on average $1500 each, even used, which means you have to have a lot of disposable income before you can own one, which means criminals will likely not spend the money at the gun store to own one, they are going to purchase one illegally, on the street.
As I said before, to a trained soldier or LEO, a military style weapon has advantages, because they know how to use them. Thugs want such weapons for how they look, and how much fear or respect they inspire on the street, not for the added advantages. Whenever I see video of gun battles between police and criminals, I generally see idiots who carry these weapons using them in such a manner as to negate their advantages, like shooting from the hip, or holding the weapon out at arms length, or holding it sideways, or a dozen other idiot things that are about looking cool, not being lethal, except by accident.
“could empty a clip on semi-auto in 5 seconds compared to 2 seconds on full-auto.”
Which proves our point that the military style weapon is just like a hunting weapon, so exactly how is the military style weapon worse?
The point I’m trying to make is the people who are truly dangerous to society with a military weapon are the persons with military and police training, who are the very people you claim are best suited to posses such weapons.
“You are delusional if you think the military does not use the most effective and dangerous weapons it can find. ”
I submit the Beretta M9 9mm handgun. Ask anybody, and a 1911 .45 is much more capable as a killing weapon. Oh and BTW, the Beretta, which holds 15 rounds, is considered an assault weapon, while the 1911, far far more lethal when shot effectively, is not because it only holds 7 rounds.
Jordan, you are welcome to continue to post the same tired arguments if you like, but if you are just going to resort to personal insults and profanity, keep it to yourself, please.
Emotional outbursts like these are why you people are not taken seriously by the mainstream media, the independents on the gun control issue, or the general public.
David,
Perhaps I wouldn’t have to post the same “tired” arguments if you would read the arguments. I’ve posted a number of times here, and amazingly, you almost never respond to my arguments. Why is that? I’m guessing because it is easier to resort to baseless blanket language that examining the issue in depth. I go on and explain the uses of a weapon, civilian purposes in ownership, background information on the weapon, and a breakdown of the use of individual features, and you just come back with the same blanket statements of “there is no reason for civilians to have these” “it was developed for the military” “they are much more lethal” without any basis in fact or reason. Then you blame me when I get mad that you just ignore the very topic that you brought up.
For once I wish someone like you would actually step back and look at the issue instead of reciting off the Brady Campaign website why assault weapons are bad. Even in your original post you say “Civilians do not need to have assault weapons, and the government has a compelling interest to limit the production and sale of them to the public.” without giving reason. You cite reasons that some of the pro-gun crowd might use, but don’t back up your assertion with any data, evidence, or even a logical argument as to why the features of an “assault weapon” make it more dangerous.
Even more of a blanket statement, you posit “Assault weapons in the hands of civilians serve no legitimate purpose; they will never make this country safer, and anything we can do to limit the production and sale of them will be an overall benefit to society in the long run.” Again, no evidence, and when reasonable people post why this law is simply feel good legislation, you resort to blanket statements with no support.
And apparently people like me are taken seriously enough, because we have no AWB today, which is exactly the way it should be. I get emotional when people just ignore other peoples arguments. With that said I won’t use profanity anymore on the board. I am reposting my last post appropriately and urge to you actually consider my argument logically.
“Of course these additional military-style features add to the lethality of a weapon. Why else would the military be using pistol grips and barrel shrouds and folding stocks, etc?”
Perhaps for practical reasons? Some ppl prefer pistol grips, others prefer a normal stock. The military went with a choice of which one it thought would be prefered and would suit the most number of ppl, namely the men and women of our armed forces. A barrel shroud you ask? Weapon barrels get hot, you don’t want to burn your hand, and that’s why you have it. Does it increase killing potential? NO. Most ALL weapons have this feature, if you’d read my previous post you’d realize this. Some are wood and some are black plastic and some are metal — but their functionality is the same, on an Ar-15 or a hunting rifle. Folding stocks? The military needs a rifle that adapts to various sizes of people, so a folding stock makes sense. Does it add it lethality? A stock with an adjustment makes it easier for me to use and suit various situations, being it having fun on the range, varmaint shooting, or as a personal defense weapon.
“These guns were manufactured for military use and very slightly modified to pass as civilian weapons. ”
Again, do your research. The primary weapon of our armed forces, an M-16, was developed for civilian manufacture and then adapted for military purposes. It wasn’t developed by the military, or specifically for use in the military. Neither have most weapons in the history of our armed forces been designed by the military.
David, from your posts it is clear that you have very little knowledge of firearms, what makes a firearm more or less lethal, how these weapons were developed, their common uses, ballistics, or how organizations make up propaganda like “a pistol grip allows spray firing from the hip.” You want to see that, thank hollywood and watch a movie. If nobody knew any better, of what was contained in the law, would anybody vote against the “no child left behind act” or the “police protection act?” No. Read the actual legislation, and get past the politics, and you’ll see your arguing for something that is not only illogical, but will cost time, money, and resources and the result with be exactly 0 net gain.
David,
I also urge that you watch this video — especially the middle part where he changes “hunting rifle” to an “assault weapon” without changing the gun.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c
It is very informative.
Actually, this is what I read about the AR-15: “The original ArmaLite/Colt AR-15 was a selective-fire prototype submitted for consideration as a military infantry rifle, which was later adopted as the M16, and is distinguished from later civilian-model AR-15 rifles marketed by Colt Firearms.” I also know for a fact that the AK-47 was designed as a military weapon, not a sporting weapon. I don’t feel the need to look up every single model, but I would assume that the same is true with the Uzi and others.
It is interesting that I have been accused of being a spokesperson for the Brady Campaign throughout this debate. In fact, I did not even think about looking at the Brady site until this charge was leveled multiple times. I found many of their arguments to be legitimate, just as I find some of yours to be as well. My overall judgment is that it will be difficult to find an easy way to distinguish what weapons belong in the assault class, but it is not impossible. I still think that just because a weapon fires at a semi-automatic rate does not mean that it should be legal.
It actually costs no money, no time, and no resources to enact something like an updated AWB. Why would it? The AWB simply outlaws the manufacture of weapons fitting the definition of “assault weapons.” As for the benefits, it is hard to tell what benefit the short 10-year ban period had on overall crime, but it does appear to have reduced the number of crimes that involved assault weapons. That seems like a good thing. But it was stupid from the beginning to pass a law like that with a long-term goal and put a 10-year sunset on it. The Act would have to be permanent to really be effective.
The huge numbers of people who support the AWB are not all just sheep and they are not all ignorant. While you may disagree with the philosophy of the Brady Campaign, it is not an organization that is ignorant of the facts. They apparantly see the facts in a different way from you, though. Also, nearly all police and law enforcement groups are in favor of an AWB. I wonder why this is?
By the way, the reason why there is no AWB today is because in 2004, when the bill was up for renewall or sunset, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Don’t worry, though, that has already started to change and it will probably be a long time before Republicans that much control again.
“It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.” – Alan Gottlieb, SAF
“The original ArmaLite/Colt AR-15 was a selective-fire prototype submitted for consideration as a military infantry rifle, which was later adopted as the M16, and is distinguished from later civilian-model AR-15 rifles marketed by Colt Firearms.”
This statement is inaccurate. The original weapon was designed by Eugene Stoner for Armalite and it was chambered in .308 win. It was then adapted to use the lighter 5.56mm cartridge. ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. Colt then marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps, which eventually was adopted as the m-16. Colt retained the ar-15 name though, in order to continue the civilian sales that Armalite had originally started.
And again, you have addressed none of my points except for the extremely minor ones. You haven’t addressed why civilians shouldn’t own these weapons, what makes them more lethal, why the purposes I have previously mentioned aren’t legitimate, or, just for arugments sake, why the “hunting rifle” in the video is ok for civilians to own, but the “assault weapon” after a stock change and bipod addition is more lethal.
“As for the benefits, it is hard to tell what benefit the short 10-year ban period had on overall crime, but it does appear to have reduced the number of crimes that involved assault weapons.”
Where are you getting this data? Even the CDC admits, and it is not exactly the model of a pro gun organization, that they cannot find any link between gun control and crime, or more specifically, any gun control law that decreased crime in a particular area.
As for your “all the police are for it” comment all I have to say is that 80% of the people in the Congress voted for “No child left behind” and this piece of legislation seems to suck. Just because a group is behind something doesn’t mean they are right. The same group, and honestly I don’t know if I believe you in the first place, probably didn’t want people to have concealed weapons permits, and amazingly we have them “shall issue” in 39 states with no increase in violence. Again, I ask you to justify the legislation on it’s face, not by saying “this group is for it”, “it won’t cost anything”, or that someone has a different view than me. I can justify, as I have, that the ban is a retarded piece of legislation with facts and logical arguments. I’m still waiting for that argument to be made on the other side.
David,
Since you’re obviously not willing to be educated on the actual functioning of firearms even after you admit you don’t know much about them nor can you define what an “assault weapon” is yet want to ban them, answer me this:
You state that the overwhelming majority of people want “Assault Weapons” banned. How many of THOSE people can actually say what one is? Where they asked that question?
The Brady Campaign are not ignorant. They are, however, opportunists and liars.
“I also know for a fact that the AK-47 was designed as a military weapon, not a sporting weapon. I don’t feel the need to look up every single model, but I would assume that the same is true with the Uzi and others.”
And since we’re not talking about “AK-47’s” or “Uzi’s”, your statement has no value.
As a comparison was made earlier. Taking a Porsche body and putting it on a Volvo frame does not make the car a Porsche.
Since people here, who you even admit know more about firearms than you do, have instructed you differently, it shows that you don’t WANT to learn and instead choose to continue to believe the propaganda. At least be honest w/ yourself about that.
Can I ask this as just a general question
Where would the anti-AWB people propose to draw the line on firearms?
Because there should be such a line drawn at some point, right? But you seem to be implying from your statements that NO firearms whatsover should be banned. Is this your stance?
miniman: That’s one point of view. Why demonize the tool when it is the *person* who is or is not dangerous?
“I also know for a fact that the AK-47 was designed as a military weapon”
So was the bolt-action rifle. Are they evil too?
Jordan, Thirdpower, and Madrocketscientist are on point, and it would help you much if you went back over their comments and really think about what they are saying.
I understand that you may feel strongly about his topic, and so do we, but facts do not support your cause.
All of the ban this, ban that rhetoric about “Saturday Night Specials,” “assault rifles,” “.50 caliber terror rifles that shoot down meteors” ad nauseum will not save lives. For all of the scare tactics of the ignorant, such as the Brady Campaign, the firearm most used in crime is the Smith & Wesson revolver chambered for .38 Special. This weapon is not aquired by criminals at gun shows or retail outlets; it is stolen by criminals from the average Joe and passed around or traded for drugs and such. The average age of a gun used in crime is somewhere around 10 years or more.
Very few rifles in general are used in a crime because they cannot be concealed nearly as easy. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but muggers don’t buy a $1,500 rifle to steal $40 from some poor guy in an alleyway. On the same note, it makes no difference whether a spree shooter chooses a Ruger Mini-14; purchased for $500, over a $2,200 Rock River Arms carbine. There is no difference in deadliness.
Why would one of the unwashed masses feel like they need to own one of these militant looking rifles? Please see my link here – http://fateoflegions.blogspot.com/2008/02/once-and-for-all.html – for a write up I did a couple of months ago.
Rifles like the DPMS AP4 carbine have the same manual of arms as the M16, so many veterans own them because they know how to shoot them. They also know they are durable and handy.
The small, lightweight bullets that this gun fires is ideal for use in the home because the bullet breaks apart with ease when it hits drywall. Shoot a 9mm in a house and it will go through many more walls than the 5.56×45mm.
Handgun cartridges are not very effective at stopping an attacker on the first shot. Rifles are.
A prominant pistol grip helps control the rifle while using the forward hand for other things such as dialing 911.
Millions of shooters use the AR platform to compete in National Matches across the country. Most AR’s have a bayonet lug.
Without a stock, a rifle that is fired several times would be too hot to hold. Without the plastic forearm, an AR like rifle would also be too hot to hold after firing several rounds.
Collapsable stocks enable the shooter to taylor the length of the rifle to their needs. My wife can shoulder an AR with a collapsable stock.
A 1913 rail system, basically an aluminum “barrel shroud,” lets the user mount a light to help identify friend form foe in the home.
Once again, none of these things increase lethality. See here if you want to see that a $400 bolt action Wal-Mart rifle is far more lethal than the little 5.56×45mm or the 7.62×39mm that the AK type rifles shoot – http://fateoflegions.blogspot.com/2008/03/part-3-ballistic-vest-live-fire-test.html – BTW, the 5th most common gun used in crime is the Mossberg 500 shotgun; also available at Wal-Mart.
“none of these things increase lethality”
David seems to have been arguing that anything that improves your ability to put a round on target “increases lethality”.
David seems to have been arguing that anything that improves your ability to put a round on target “increases lethality”.
By this logic we should ban all guns with longer barrels, not the shorter ones, because a barrel that is longer will increase the accuracy that you can put a bullet on target. So on one hand, ban the shorter ones because they allow for more maneuverability, but then again, ban the longer ones because they are more accurate. Ban a normal grip because it can be more accurate to a hunter who has used this type of grip, ban the pistol grip because you can “shoot from the hip”, even if it decreases accuracy greatly. There is a circular logic here.
Lethality, in the context we are using it, is the weapons ability to kill or cause carnage more so than the next weapon your comparing it to, not the shooters ability to hold the gun, or the shooters ability to be accurate, or the shooters ability to do any other number of things. In banning one form of weapon over another, you should pit the “assault weapon” against the “sporting weapon” and determine if one is more lethal than the next. The basic answer here is that a mini-14 with a wood stock is no more lethal than a mini-14 of the same caliber with a pistol grip. It is purely a preference and it looks different, and yet one is classified as an assault weapon and the other not. It simply doesn’t make sense.
While I still don’t agree with it, the argument would be much much stronger if you said you wanted to ban all weapons in .50 BMG because they have the ability to go through walls, almost all body armor, etc. There you are gaining lethality because of the caliber of the round. Nevermind that these guns cost 10 grand a piece, but this argument is for another day.
So there is absolutely no firearm out there that should be banned? You can’t think of even one specific gun that should definately be kept out of people’s hands?
“I have found and the case itself show the Court’s disposition against the allegedly “fundamental” right to keep and bear arms. The Court rejects that very argument, requiring that the weapon under consideration must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… [and that it] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” That provides several hurdles before this “fundamental” right can be recognized. Under this standard, there is no way that private citizens owning TEC-9s or Uzis or AR-15s would be seen as Constitutionally protected. ”
Sounds like a “fundamental” moron, to me.
“So there is absolutely no firearm out there that should be banned? You can’t think of even one specific gun that should definately be kept out of people’s hands?”
I figured this question would come about sooner or later. “There’s got to be somethin’ worth bannin!!!”
I’m sure you have several types of firearms in mind; probably because you are scared by their looks. The gun most often used in crime is a short barrel S&W revolver in .38 Special. That is also an extremely popular gun amongst cops and citizens. Should we ban it?
How about howitzers? It is perfectly legal to own them, if one can afford the shells that it fires. Imagine the damage a citizen could do with one of these – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF1lKU39qDA
Oooh, oooh, how about Biological weapons! We should ban those right? Then nobody could use them – http://fateoflegions.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-deadly-self-defense-weapon.html
To answer your question though; no. There are no guns worth banning. Rifles are not at all a problem, and that includes Ronnie Barrett’s rifles.
Perhaps we would be better off just banning death. That should just about cover everything.
I’ve tried to give your side a fair-hearing, but statements like that just make me doubt your sanity.
CTone,
I’m mostly against restrictive gun laws, but I’m also a pragmatist. The name of the game for reasonable people is COMPROMISE. A statement like “there are absolutely no guns that should be banned” is absurd, because there is another, valid side to this argument and this is a democracy. As in everything, the answer is not found far out on one ideaological side or far out on the other, but somewhere in the middle.
miniman, JSC
We have a complete class of weapons that are banned. Except for a few weapons built back around WW2, no civilian can own a fully automatic firearm. This prohibition has made the price of the rare legal fully automatic firearms skyrocket such that a single firearm costs easily over $10K.
Also, civilians can not own military explosive weapons without special permits and background checks, and even then only very limited weapons are permitted.
So there ya have it, there are your banned weapons. Why do we need to ban anything else?
I’m a realist. I understand compromise enough to know that the “other side” has no intentions of compromise. Proir to 1968, one could by just about any type of firearm from a catalog, and we didn’t have the problems we have now.
Since then we have a hodgepodge of stupid laws that make felons out of ordinary people for no apparent reason other than to make some beaurocrat look good at a podium. Has our crime gone down? Quite the opposite.
I refuse to give away my rights to people who would compromise in order to make someone “feel” safe. This is the reason I have never joined the NRA. Should we just demonize a firearm that the ignorant are scared of for no particular reason other than to suppress the lamentations of those who have no clue about its value or utility?
“But there must be compromise! Some are dealier than others; CNN said so!”
The argument that has been going on within these comments is: there is no measure of deadliness between different types of firearms. Cosmetic features, cartridge size, optics, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, slings; make no diference whatsoever with the lethality. Has no one read any of the above comments? A well placed .22 short is a magnitude more deadly than an edger with a .50 BMG.
And yet some still cry for compromise. For what exactly?
There has to be something that we can do to stop the senseless killing!! Of course there is. How about criminal control.
“Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest
record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a
felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of
those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest
record.” – http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
How about we stop putting non-violent pot heads in prison, and make more room for life-means-life sentences for violent offenders! Oh, you want to rob a liquor store at knifepoint on your 20th birthday? We have a place for you!
We start putting those criminals in a prison without TV and conjugal visits for the rest of their lives, and erase their name from society so they don’t erase someone elses; rough childhod be damned.
Picking a name-the-stereotypical-terrorist-firearm-of-choice-this-week to ban in some insane effort to stop a killing is an exercise in stupidity.
“I’m a realist. I understand compromise enough to know that the “other side” has no intentions of compromise. Prior to 1968, one could by just about any type of firearm from a catalog, and we didn’t have the problems we have now. ”
Yup, we’ve already DONE the compromise thing, and what that dolt, JSC, and ALL just like him, really mean to say is capitulate, to their wants and whims. In other words, all of us gunowners should just let the politicos tell us what we can and can’t have, give up those scary guns, and let big brother protect us from our juvenile selves.
My advice to the hosts is that they should stay the hell out of discussing a subject that they are clearly not informed enough to have even the slightest opinion about.
Really, get bent.
The common clause in Heller states that you can’t ban guns in common use at the time for legal purposes. So-called mislabeled “assault weapons” are very much in common use. The AR-15 is the most popular center-fire rifle in the United States, mainly used for the legal purpose of target shooting. “Assault Weapons” like the AR-15 and semi-automatic AK-47 Clones are everywhere in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
But let’s pretend that the antis get around the common use and still do another more strict assault weapon ban. I sure hope you antis favor it having a grandfather clause like the 1994 one did. There are a lot of gun owners out there that are spending their hard earned money and stockpiling “assault weapons” because they are afraid of another ban. No granfather clause means confiscation, and you would be smoking crack if you think millions of amercians are just going to hand over their expensive property just to make a few suits “feel better”. Not to mention no grandfather clause would be political suicide.
Let’s also look at the Democrat controlled congress. Many of those Dems are either pro-gun or at least savy enough to know that AWBs cost them elections. They lost congress in 1994 to 2006 because of it. Al Gore lost his own home state in 2000 because of gun control. Kerry can blame a good part of his 2004 loss on wanting to reinstate the AWB. Also keep in mind that the 1994 AWB barely got the votes; and that was at a time when it was the thing to do. I question whether they could even get the votes to do it now.
But if they did get the votes for another AWB, I don’t see how they could possibly get one passed if it did not include another grandfather clause in it; making those guns already legally bought and owned sitll legal to keep. Some people have invested thousands of dollars in their collections, and they just aren’t going to say “ok, here take my expensive property”. So if any antis here are against a grandfather clause and for confiscation, that makes you more of a fanatical than someone who is buying a few extra assault weapons because they fear another ban.
This is stupid! Any firearm is capable of killing humans, and animals, the point is, why do we need to ban assault weapons? Lets say you ban assault weapons entirely, and enforce it by searching everyone single Americans home, what then? Does this mean some guy who can not control himself can not kill another human with a 30-30 lever action rifle? That is impossible, why? Because it is meant to hunt deer and can not kill a human, only deer. The assault weapons ban will work, because like murder, which is illegal, once it was banned, people will stop doing it entirely. Hahahaha! Yeah right.
You know if I want to own a cool looking gun, why not? I am not hurting anyone with it, and banning an AR15 would be okay if you decided to go ahead and ban Jack Daniels, and fast cars, since drunk drivers kill more humans than firearms, but like the liberals believe, its not the peoples fault, its the “evil guns” fault. So by this reasoning, its not peoples fault for driving drunk its the Alcohol and the Mustang! There is something called self-control, if people just go around blasting people, or if they have a record for stupidity, don’t sell them a gun!
Anyways, I am going to get myself an AR15, because it is cool, maybe thats a stupid reason, but if you do not like it move somewhere else!
YEAH, MOVE TO FRANCE!!!!!
GO AMERICA!!! USA USA USA USA. GUNS, SEX, BOOBS, SOCIAL SECURITY!!!111!!
Antonio seems abnormally repressed, even for a gun nut. Maybe it’s because we elected a Muslim to be our president…
In all seriousness, though: seriously? You cannot speak in extremes and hope to make a realistic application to a specific policy debate, such as the one over the AWB. Your language like “any firearm is capable of killing humans” is detrimental to your cause because there comes a point at which we all agree (even the repressed nuts) that certain weapons should be banned. Mortars, machine guns, RPGs, etc. You utterly ignore the differentiation and finesse involved in drawing that line between what is a reasonable recreational firearm and what is more specifically designed for killing other humans.
Also, your murder analogy supports the AWB side of things because yes, we do want to ban murder and punish it, even if it still does occasionally happen. We don’t want to give up because the policy cannot be 100% effective.
But really, I can’t believe somebody else stumbled on this post after so long.
Fire from the hip? What good what that do? David you watch too many movies! Firing from the hip usually just wastes ammunition, unless you are in really close range. If you have a Shotgun you can fire from the hip at close range, even if the Shotgun has no pistol grip on it. A bayonet? You are afraid of a bayonet? Haha! I feel sorry for you, and people like you, I really hope Obama spends more money on education, it might be too late for you, but there is time for other people. This goes back to the same thing, why should you be allowed to buy Vodka, if you can get drunk on beer? Is it necessary? This is the same logic that you use you for gun control.
Do people need “assault weapons?” If you go by the true definition of assault weapons, which is a select fire, automatic weapon, then no. However, not needing something is no grounds for making it illegal, however, especially since the “assault weapon” ban has been lifted, GUN VIOLENCE DID NOT GO UP. So you want to ban things that don’t hurt anybody. Brilliant use of time, don’t you think?
The simple way to end this debate: If you make it ILLEGAL to own “Assault Weapons”, who do you think is going to have them? CRIMINALS. Law abiding civilians will relinquish their Assault Weapons. But will the criminals still have access to them? You bet your ass.
CRIMINALS do NOT care if you ban Assault Weapons. They are CRIMINALS who do not follow the law in the first place. What is a simple little law/ban going to do to stop them from obtaining Assault Weapons? NOTHING
Example: Cocaine is illegal/banned/not allowed, correct? If that is the case, how come it is wide spread and popular among drug users? Because they DO NOT CARE about the LAW.
If a gangbanger needs a gun so he can slay some victims, he is certainly not going to purchase the Assault Weapon legally and an AWB is not going to stop him…
-ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Just wondering, but does this mean that cocaine should be legal?
And also, it implies that no weapon (auto, landmine, etc.) should be illegal because then the citizens will just be outgunned in the street wars between criminals and republicans. It’s that simple, eh?
Gentlemen. Save it you have a madman here. He wants total government control. Stop wasting your time, you are just giving him a pulpit to preach lies from. Instead remember his name and this site and let his carrier end here.
Political Cartel, we all know political but, Cartel. Is that not what certain groups of people use to beat down all opposition to their ideas, products, etc.? Webster states ( a combination of political groups for common action) Save your breath!!!
Let’s keep our idea to those who are like minded but not informed. Wasting energy here is just that, a waste. Mr Manes will not move and you just give him a forum, and you may believe this was a discussion, no Demonazi discuss, they dictate, has he not dictated?
Know after all this, so you may take comfort, that if we ever let the country goes his way. Mr Manes great government, will be putting the Assault Weapon of their choice, butt end first into his jaw for something he wrote but they did not approve!
Unite Gun Owners! Freedom loving Americans!
200,000,000 guns in private hands and growing as I write.
120,000,000 gun owners and growing also!!!
And there are only 4 million NRA members and the power the NRA has is pure crazy.
You want to really have a good feeling about something HELP ME BRING IT TO 60,000,000 members by Obama’s end of his first year in office.
Is now not the time to unite my people?
With that many members we will be the dictators like Patrick Henry envisioned!!!!!
Just one great mans quote.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;…” Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. 1824. ME 16:45.
This has to be a joke. Right? It made me laugh out loud several times.
“I know the last post on gun control was explosive, and it wasn’t even directly promoting more control.” Lol. Guns. Explosive.
I certainly hope you’ll find no gun butts in your jaw, David.
I think there was a sentence up there that said “the NRA is pure crazy” or something like that. That little nugget gave it away as a joke.
On a more serious note, this is what the crazies like many of the above commenters remind me of:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/05/pittsburgh.officers.shot.dog/index.html
It’s similar rhetoric, similar extremism, similar emotionalism, and similar scariness. This is what AK-47s are good for. If you call shooting cops good.
Yeah, that’s gonna discourage me from checking this first thing in the morning, David.
Did one of the Nigerian ambassador email scammers write that? I kind of want a ‘Demonazi’ bumper sticker now.
“Civilians do not need to have assault weapons, and the government has a compelling interest to limit the production and sale of them to the public.”
The first portion of the sentence is incorrect.
The second is correct. Typically the more tyrannical the government then the more interested it is in disarming it’s civilians.
The founders of this nation (the USA) placed in safeguards in attempt to protect the Liberty of “the people” from the tyrannical, the traumatized, and the gullible.
Mr. Manes: Please read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Constitution of the United States. Study some history – go back to the Magna Carta. If you still don’t understand the importance of Armed Civilians then think carefully and do your best to determine what mix of the the above attributes (i.e., tyrannical, the traumatized, and the gullible) you posses.
lol, another one of these?
I am not related to this person (I don’t think?). Yeah, David you probably only signed up for one.
What the hell?
It must be my evil split gun-totin’ personality.