Slashdot Mirror
Assault Weapons Ban
An anonymous reader writes "With all the Constitutional arguments that appear on /., perhaps some readers might be interested in this BBC Article about the expiration of the Clinton assault weapons ban. Both presidential candidates have spoken in favor of it, but no one is willing to vote to keep it."
This is one of those issues which wouldn't be complicated if we could sit down and work out a reasonable comprimise, but of course that's not how we work in America anymore. Gotta stick with either-or's, and the other side are a bunch of wackos or nutcases. But, even though I know it's gonna get my ass flamed, I'll take a swing at it. I'm not scared. I got my aesbestos underoos on.
Obviously guns don't cause people to shoot each other, there are more complex reasons for it. That said, however, it's the access to high-capacity weapons (like the ones that were banned) that enables these folks to go out and kill half their highschool. Preventing gun makers from building these guns obviously makes it tougher for people to get them, which is a Good Thing -- nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.
But the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA, who don't let reason creep in on their paranoia about pinko lefties coming to take away their guns and kick over their stills or whatever. They, combined with a few people on the extreme left who don't think people ought to be able to hunt or whatever, combine to paralyze the whole damn debate.
But then we're down to the apparently unresolvable gun control back and forth. But that's okay, 'cause I got my fireproof underoos. Flame away.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Godwin's Law!
That's because guns in the hands of the people == less power for government. It's all about the Second Amendment, baby!
for home use. The manufacture of new RAM and the disposal of old causes pollution, which kills people. Therefore, make it illegal to own more than 640 KB.
Let's see how long this takes to get modded into the toilet.
It's funny that the article mentions that this law bans "military-style" weapons, because "style" is mostly what this law is about.
From the Beeb article - "The move means that ordinary citizens will be allowed to keep heavy assault weapons in their homes."
Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing.
Take a look at this page for some interesting info.
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/
--riney
Commentators from both sides of the gun control debate have gone on record as saying that the Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an effect on crime. Certain guns were banned because of how they looked (folding stock, pistol grip, etc.), not because of how they functioned (all the banned guns fire the same caliber of bullets and at the same speed as ordinary hunting rifles). In addition, large rifles are not weapons of choice for committing crimes. Criminals prefer handguns.
The ban is sunsetting because it didn't really do any good and nobody is willing to risk their political career on renewing it. Even if it did come to a vote, I'm not sure Kerry would risk the swing state votes by voting to renew it. Bush would probably be forced to eat his words when it comes to signing it.
The whole thing is one great political football. The assault weapons I'm worried about are those that are being used on both sides of our failed war in Iraq, not the ones sitting in a gun collector's safe.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...common-sense...
It seems strange that at a time when preventing terrorism is a priority that they would be willing to let weapons such as these enter circulation...
Now I can go hunt deer with an AK-47!
The Clinton ban did not ban "assault weapons," unless you use the term to mean "anything I want to call an assault weapon." It SPECIFICALLY does not ban "AK-47, Kalashnikov and Uzi rifles."
In the US, automatic weapons are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1935, and can be owned by any citizen who can pass the background checks, demonstrate the ability to store them securely and pay the licensing fees. And then pay the exorbinant prices a machinegun commands on today's market, and pay for a private range membership to fire it at, and pay for all that ammo you would use up.
In practical terms, the Clinton ban's main effect was to limit civilian handguns to 10-round magazines. And even then, preban magazines are still widely available for many models of handguns, and law enforcement officers can buy whatever they want.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
The so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was nothing more than a feel-good measure that had nothing to do with crime or safety. All it did manage to do was annoy and/or piss-off people who buy or own guns. No appreciable benefit to any constituency, and a big downside to a rather sizeable constituency. It is no wonder that most politicians don't want to touch this issue, and Bush knew full well that it would never end up on his desk. If you ignore the Democrats in "safe States" like California, who can soapbox on this issue all day without consequences, it is a "third-rail" issue everywhere else whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
The 1994 Congressional blood bath pretty much assures that gun control won't be touched again for a long time.
But that's beside the point. Since when do you need to justify owning a piece of metal?
You just wait until the armies of the undead come
knocking. You'll be wishing for a belt-feed.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Semi-Automatic: One pull of the trigger, one round fired
Burst/Select Fire: One pull of the trigger fires 2-5 rounds, the MP5N and M16A2 IIRC uses a three round burst
Fully Automatic: One pull of the trigger fires the gun until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammo.
The article linked is incorrect that the AK-47 (and other fully automatic and select fire weapons ie M16, L85, M60, Uzi's, FNFAL, AK-74 and their chinese ripoffs , HK G36, G21, G11, and G53 series rifles, Glock 17 pistols) were banned as a result of the Assault Weapons Ban, it is actully banned under the 1934 National Firearms Act. To posses these weapons today, you must have a Class III Federal Firearms Licence, which includes a massive federal background check, and pay $150 tax per weapon.
The assualt weapons only covers weapons that look different than a traditional deer rifle, there is no functional difference between a AR-15 (semi auto version of the M16) and a Deer rifle you could buy at walmart, they fire the same ammo (.223 Remington Magnum), as fast as you can pull the trigger.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
CNN clearly shows that gun crime is way down, even Gun Nuts agree that the rate of gun crime is way down, and the Justice Department numbers back this up.
Saying the rate would have dropped anyway is disingenuous as it is totally un-provable. We can't say that the bill prevented crime %100, but we can be %99.9 sure that that is the case.
The reasoning behind granting everyone the unrestricted right to keep and bare arms was that a well armed populace is harder to oppress then an unarmed populous. I.e. he government should not have an excessive advantage over the populous in the amount of force at its disposal.
Carrying this to its logical conclusion, citizens should be allowed to posses all the weapons the government is allowed to; if they cannot, there is no way a popular revolt could succeed. The government, with its tanks and other large weapons, could easily roll over any revolt by citizens.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison,
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."
No, you do not need an assault weapon for hunting. But you do need it for personal defense against an oppressive government. That is the justification for allowing them to be possessed.
Aside from that, how am I going to kick the ass of a foreign army, marauding zombies, or invading aliens if I don't have a handy, insanely large supply of firepower?
________
Magnus frater spectat te
Umm, all your cites are about the Brady Bill. This topic is about the Assault Weapons Ban. They are not the same thing.
Get your facts straight.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...cite checker...
Do you REALLY think *terrorists* would purchase their weapons in corner gun store???
Paul B.
Don't get me wrong, we should keep our right to drive on the highway, but we shouldn't allow anyone to be able to go 100 miles per hour just as we don't allow people to roll down the highways in tanks or giant bulldozers.
Important law? My friend. the assualt weapons law has to be the least important law on the books. It does nothing of substance. It has been a complete and total failure.
Finkployd
Your post has NOTHING to do with the assault weapons ban. The guns banned as assault weapons are mostly LESS powerful than common hunting guns. In fact for many common hunting activities the guns banned are not powerful enough.
All this ban does is prohibit some cosmetic things. No bayonet mount on your gun for instance. How does a bayonet on a gun make it less acceptable in your eyes?
I saw an interesting piece about the ban today in the time. Basically, the ban is worthless. Guns, very much similar to "banned" guns can still be had. Usual difference is a non-pistol grip, no flash suppressor (replaced by a muzzle), or even having a collapsing stock pinned so it can no longer collapse (like the Washington belt-way sniper used).
Why do you think we *have* the Second Amendment, crispyman?
It has nothing to do with sport weapons.
It is, very simply, to avoid oppressive regimes from ever dominating the citizenry by disarming them.
A gun that could only shoot non-humans would have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Gun rights were guaranteed specifically so that *people* could be shot as a last ditch resort.
I have no interest in ever owning a gun -- the benefits provided by the Second Amendment are present as long as enough citizenry own guns. However, I strongly support allowing citizenry access to assault weapons.
Note that guns simply guarantee Hobbsian "rough equality" between people and soldiers -- if soldiers have assault rifles, people also need assault rifles. I do *not* support allowing people to have weapons that allow massive amplification of killing power above that of a soldier as long as they strike first -- like bombs and the like. Assault weapons? Sure, I'd say that it's pretty much essential to allow people to have assault weapons.
Take a look at Switzerland -- they have almost no limitations on the weapons civilians can have. You want a howitzer, you can have one. And if you're a male and above a certain age, you *must* own a rifle -- you're considered part of the militia. As a result (even aside from the fact that Switzerland has never been invaded) Switzerland has a low gun crime rate, much lower than the United States. It's hard to glamorize a tool that everyone has (e.g. you could stick someone in the eye with a pen, but everyone has a pen and it isn't very exciting). Furthermore, it's a dissusasive factor to someone who might consider committing a crime if most people are walking around with weapons. Sure, maybe you can pull out your gun and hold up a bank, but you're nothing special -- it'd be like doing so with a knife when everyone else has knives. Or with your bare hands when everyone else has bare hands -- you're going to be hurt by similarly-armed people.
I could *maybe* even see gun laws banning handguns. But never assault rifles. Assault weapons are the core of the Second Amendment.
May we never see th
The law banned manufacture of large capacity magazines, except for sale to police. So in many towns, police traded in their old guns and large mags for new, and their old large mags went into the secondary market. Go to a gun store and ask to see the selection of large mags, if you don't believe me. There's a glut.
The whole thing was about appearances, and giving people the warn fuzzies. Did you know the law banned bayonet lugs on the muzzle? Sure, I'm real concerned about being STABBED when someone's pointing a gun at me.
Ever felt threatened by a folding stock? Banned.
Anything that looks like a milspec gun? Banned.
The EXACT SAME barrel, ammo, receiver, trigger action, etc? Not banned.
The latest Slashdot meme.
Of course no one will touch renewing this law. It was a law for soccer moms and for gun control advocates who wanted a foot in the door to confiscating and banning all guns. None of the gun laws we have on the books are Constitutional. And if any of them ever got tried in the Supreme Court, they would be blotted off the books.
This was one of the worst laws because it robbed people of the full functionality of a class of weapon specifically protected by the Second Amendment, did nothing to affect crime, unreasonably increased costs to manufacturers, and it left the option open for greater encroachment upon our rights.
As Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed." You can't be a good American unless you choose to arm yourself. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all our other rights rest.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
1. The thing to remember with Columbine is none of the guns used were legally obtained by the kids using them.
2. None of the guns on the ban are fully automatic guns. Those have been illegal since the 1940's.
3. So what if some one shoots a bunch of people with a gun that looks like a hunting rifle or a military style rifle. The results are still the same.
Kill the criminals and stop attacking the guns.
If you've tried to stop Politics stories from showing up on your Slashdot front page by checking the appropriate boxes in your Preference page, you may still find them showing up. This is because of a bug in Slash that's been outstanding since July, when CmdrTaco said it'd be back "soon enough". If you're tired of seeing Politics stories go leave a comment in hopes that this bug will be fixed before we go mad!
...then it's the terrorists who'll get shot.
Terorists are going to have shady contacts to acquire guns regardless. Or make them, which isn't too hard if you have facilities for machining metal. So the only real difference will be whether or not you disarm the law-abiding potential victims.
How can you compare a gun to a nuclear bomb?
So the US government is worried about terrorism but isn't worried about extremely destructive assault weapons being sold to any loony that wants to have one? That realy makes sense.
Sometimes ideals and principals are worth the cost of a few lives. Guns in the hands of criminals should be considered "A Bad Thing," but the only way to keep this from ever happening is to eliminate guns completely...which will never happen. To pass silly laws which only get rid of certain weapons while ignoring all the other ones with similar capabilities is simply a waste of time for Congress. Neither party is willing to take the drastic step I mentioned above, so let's stop blowing smoke up the American public's ass by telling them that they will be "Safer" if this bill gets renewed.
For someone to assert that there is "no legitimate need" for a 30 round clip is simply missing the point of what freedom is. Certainly, I am not saying that we as citizens of a "Free Country" are free to do what we please no matter who it hurts, but when has simply owning a gun hurt anyone. There are already a myriad of laws making it a crime to shoot, kill, and even threaten people with said gun. If for no other reason than it is fun to shoot off 30 rounds in one second I think we should be able to own and legally use what ever gun we choose.
Sure, I feel bad for the victims of gun crimes, but making all the legal users suffer for the failings of a very small minority known as criminals, just doesn't seem all that American to me.
If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns and then the cops can immediately open fire on anyone they see with a gun because they'll know for certain that he's a bad guy! Sounds good to me!
The AWB does not ban these - they are covered under an earlier law which does not expire (they can still be owned under certain onerous conditions).
The AWB, despite its name, actually covers semi-automatic rifles which resemble to certain assault rifles. Semis fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, in the same way that a policeman's pistol or a cowboy's revolver does. They are not assault weapons since they cannot be fired in automatic mode. The AWB lists guns resembling certain assault weapons, or which have more than a certain number of specific features, such as a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a flash hider, or a telescoping stock.
The AWB bans semi-automatic rifles which look scary, ignoring the fact that the average deer rifle is far more powerful and has better range.
I own an AR15 which I use in CMP target matches. While this rifle fires essentially the same round as our soldiers are using in Iraq, in many places I could not even use it to hunt deer legally, since its too feeble a round. Something like this packs a much bigger punch. Of course, there is no talk of banning this rifle, since it does not look scary.
A good analogy to the AWB would be if the legislature decided to attack dangerous driving by banning fuzzy dice and chrome exhausts. It might make some people feel better, but actually attacks the wrong target. (The right target is the criminal, not the gun.)
The (so-called) "Assault Weapons Ban" is a very silly law which did not ban Assault Weapons, or detectably reduce crime. I'm glad its dying. I'm not going out to buy any of the 'scary features' for my rifle - it's fine as it is. But I will like having the ability to do so if I wanted - that's what freedom is all about.
...which is hardly suprising given their status as a nationalized company funded via a TV tax, and their mandate to be "better for you" than commercial TV.
I believe the USA equivalent is "PBS"? They aren't known for their love of guns either.
This has been a very ill-conceived and widely misunderstood law, and I will be glad to see it go.
The affected weapons are mostly ones that outwardly resemble military firearms, while having nowhere near the firepower. Rather than firing bursts of ammunition like their fully-automatic counterparts, the so-called assault rifles fire one shot at a time, with less powerful ammunition than a hunting rifle. Pistols affected by this law generally had outward designs similar to fully-automatic submachine guns, but had only the same caliber and rate of fire as an ordinary handgun - with much bulkier size and weight.
A criminal would be an idiot to choose a firearm from the affected class of firearms. They would use an ordinary handgun, or if they really sought something more powerful as defenders of the legislation claim, they would smuggle in some firearms that actually WERE military grade instead of just superficially looking like it.
In practice, the only people affected by the law have been legitimate gun collectors, who disagree with the law but struggle to comply with it. What shape grips constitute a "conspicuous pistol grip"? When the law requires a barrel attachment to be "permanently affixed", do you weld it, super-glue it on, pin it, use lock-tight? Interpret the subjective phrases differently than someone at the ATF, and you become a felon.
The other major provision was a limitation on ammunition magazines ("clips") to 10 rounds. Much like 640k of memory, this might seem to be enough for anybody. But, given that those who are most in the know about defending oneself in life and death situations (police, military, federal agents, etc.) generally carry larger magazines than this themselves, even with superior training to worry less about missing their target, perhaps there is something to be said for having a couple extra rounds just in case.
The other flaw with the 10 round limit is that it was based on the arbitrary assumption that no civilian would ever need more than this to protect themself, but provided no guarantee to back this up. Why did the law not include language guaranteeing that before any civilian had fired the 10th shot in a life-and-death situation, police would had arrived on the scene and taken their attacker into custody?
This is great. I can finally get some 17-round magazines for my Glock at a reasonable price.
The ban never really affected anything. Guns were either modified to be legal under the ban, (and functionally identical) or the costs of pre-bans was driven through the roof.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
As long as I can get a Rifle that can hold more than one round in a magzine, (5 will do). If the times comes for revolution, (which if Bush wins a second term, there will be one), all I have to do is kill one solder, pick up his gun and the ammo on him, and procede to kill more solders, pick up their guns and ammo for my friends, and there you have it, we are now equally armed.
Trained is another matter, though there are guns similar to the M16 that one could still get with an Instant Background check.
If a revolution is to suceed, it will only suceed through a carefully laid out stratigy. Given a smart enough mind, and ANY kind of gun this can be brought to pass. Hell, you could "steal" a battalion of tanks if you plan it, (though I would much rather have an M-16 from a dropped solder, than a thank)
There were some good details of this legislation, namely that it furthered the effort to enforce existing laws regarding background checks and waiting periods, but there were numerous loopholes.
For example, gun configurations were banned, like large-scale magazines, weapons with built-in cleaning kits, bayonets, folding stocks, etc., however the individual sale of many of these components wasn't completely restricted so in many cases you could buy an SKS or AK-47, purchase a folding stock separately, and configure the weapon on your own. It was way too easy to get around this.
The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer? Unfortunately, the passage of this bill didn't really reduce the availability of these weapons or their components in my opinion. I've always been able to go down the street to the gun shop and buy a cheap Chinese-made AK-47 for less than it costs to pick up a modest hand gun.
What I found most ironic about the Brady Bill and Feinstein Amendment, was that the NRA blew the consequences of this legislation way out of preportion and suggested its passage was going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The facts since then have indicated otherwise - the more-stricly-enforced background checks have reduced the number of firearms getting into the hands of people who were prohibited from owning them. At the same time, the proliferation of many of the assault weapons has not been noticeably diminished. Ironically, the NRA, for all its anti-commie, freedom-lovin', second-amendment protecting propaganda, vehemently pushed for the opposition of this bill which mainly would have had the most profound impact on the substantive importation of communist-Chinese-manufactured assault weapons which have been flooding the US. This is a case of the NRA agenda helping directly fund a communist regime - irony of ironies, and a talking point they never brought up in all their dialogue on this law.
A revolution is very different from an interstate conflict.
Funny, the district court held that NFA '34 was unconstitutional.
When it got to the Supreme Court, they never read or heard the defendants' views, heard only one side of the matter, the government's side, and declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s).
Short barreled shotguns have been used by the military since the Civil War. They are certainly appropriate weapons for the militia, as defined by the Second Amendment (any able bodied male; note the definition is from the Federalist Papers, not the Bill of Rights).
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Maybe you understand why gun owners don't trust Kerry or the Democratic Party in general. They lie about us and about gun issues when they can't get traction with the truth. I would personally like to vote for someone other than Bush, but I'm sure as hell not voting for Kerry.
Sorry I cannot spell that correctly, but I'm not German. The Germans, however, are the ones that invented and named the "assault rifle".
.30-06. The .30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
It is a small, relatively under-powered sub machine gun. Small cartridges, so more can be carried because more are wasted.
The Ban didn't effect "assault rifles", because those are already covered by the 1934 and 1968 laws.
As was stated by the people who wrote the "assault weapon" ban, they were counting on the American public being duped into thinking that the rifles effected were "assault rifles", Machine guns, Actual military hardware. What we got was pointless regulation which demonized cosmetic features and created massive confusion and cost for everyone involved.
Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the
Then there is the stupidity of prohibition. Every time it is tried it fails. Alcohol prohibition created the environment of criminal gangs, mafia, "organized" crime that is alive and well to this day.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There isn't any logic, of course. Any prohibition in a so-called "free" society is doomed. Either the prohibition is ignored, or the freedoms that would allow the law to be ignored are taken away.
There has been continual prohibition in the US since January 16th, 1919. Government has grown titanic, organized crime are almost peaceful compared to the jack-booted thugs who hide behind their badges. "Citizens" are tracked like cattle, allowed freedom only in limited, carefully regulated bounds, while the police kill at will.
And all because we forgot the most important part of the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The existence of prohibition is, on its face, such a usurpation. The fact that there are many prohibitions right now merely demonstrates that our masters are indeed persuing invariably the same object.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
And WHY did the Supreme Court only hear one side of the issue?
Miller was dead!
And short barreled shotguns were being used in WWI to clear trenches IIRC. The Supreme Court never got to hear that though. Might have changed a lot of things if Miller had still be around for his hearing.
Same muzzle velocity, same barrel length, same everything that is important ...
But no flash suppressor. Big whoop dee doo! Like I need a flash suppressor.
As for the clip ruling. You just count your shots. When you have one left (in the chamber) you drop the old clip and slot a new one. With a bit of practice, you can do this in under 2 seconds.
Also, the larger capacity clips are still legal (just as you've pointed out with the weapons themselves). But private citizens are only allowed to own ones from before the "ban".
The only thing(s) this "ban" did was:
#1. Jack up the prices on the weapons and clips
#2. Give everyone who didn't read it a warm fuzzy false sense of security and accomplishment.
device. Tomorrow it's the mad grad student."
Professer Farnsworth
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolf Hitler
Creative Demolition
haha, the 9mm fans are celebrating like there is no tomorrow.
but it don't make no difference to the 1911 owners. 7+1 is all she wrote...
ain't that right ESR? http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/rig.html/
-
-- Believe your Justice!
Just a quick note: rapid fire weapons were known (but rarely, if ever used) well before the American Revolution. James Puckle patented a weapon he called a "defense system" in 1718. It was a more or less a large tripod-mounted revolver capable of firing 9 shots a minute. There is mention of a test on another site where one man fired 63 shots in seven minutes--an incredible volume of fire considering it takes roughly 2-3 minutes to load and fire a black powder musket. The weapon, oddly enough, didn't fare too well in the market. But it wasn't the only weapon of firing (more) rapidly that were at least known of during the period; a breif google search turned up multiple-barreled weapons dating to the late 1500's. Since many of the Founding Fathers had military experience and/or military training as a part of their schooling it is highly unlikely that they would be ignorant of these devices, although they may have scoffed at their practicality.
As for larger weapons, we do have to remember that around the time of the American Revolution private persons owned merchant ships (and privateers) that went about armed with cannons.
there are plenty of guns that have "assault weapon" functionality.they just banned the mean looking ones.
friggin stupid. in reality, they wanted it to be a stepping stone to tighter control.
as all gun laws are.
There are an estimated 30,000,000 assault rifles in the United States. 0.01% of those are estimated to have been involved in crimes.
Ted Kennedy's care is responsible for more deaths in America than 29,997,000 assault rifles.
...you don't deserve to live.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
s/care/car/
Alot of people have said that an armed populace cannot stand against an armed military. Will this true in the absolute sense. You are failing to take into account the citizens in uniform. Not all and probably most american soldiers would not likely fire on an american citizen. Period.
If a populace is unarmed the decision to subjagate them is alreadt made and the soldier never has to make that decision.
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
I'm far from an expert here, but...
The ban is being attacked for being focused on appearance rather than function. But I think there's a useful issue behind it, and that's making it so law enforcement officers can do their job.
My impression is that the nasty guns (automatics, etc) are under very heavy regulation, and I would suspect that legally-owned automatics are the property of responsible gun collectors. That means that if law enforcement officers see one, and its not on a gun range or in a collector's home, or at a gun show, they could have this sneaking suspicion that it's illegal.
Furthermore, if you see one of these weapons involved in commission of a crime, there's clearly a different set of 'rules of engagement' than if you see an ordinary rifle or pistol. The officer is up against a far more dangerous foe, and deadlier force is appropriate.
Enter 'assault weapons,' something that looks like an automatic weapon. Now if the officer sees what looks like an automatic weapon being used in commission of a crime, the rules of engagement are less clear. If it's really an automatic and force is used appropriate to an assault weapon, policemen may die. If it's really an assault weapon and force is used appropriate to an automatic, suddenly the police are Brutal Pigs.
Appearance CAN be important.
I'd like to see serious proposals by the NRA for how we solve the problems that cause others to call for firearm bans. I get the distinct impression that the NRA is strictly "pry it from my cold, dead hands" and just doesn't think about the consequences of those guns in the wrong hands. The REAL problem is bad people doing things with guns, and many think the solution is to take away the guns. Maybe there's another solution - at least work on the idea.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Poor examples.
I remember the riots of the 60's. Nothing changed. Change was effected by the likes of peaceful marches of MLK, and the sympathetic led by John and Robert Kennedy. You know, those two guys that some other poster was so proud to have killed by an ordinary gun, thereby demonstrating how important it is that everybody have one.
Tienanmen Square. Yeah, I remember that. Nifty footage at the time. Didn't make squat for a difference in China, though. AFAIK, the only difference is a change in public assembly rules - and access to Tienanmen Square. China has changed, but that has been in response to other pressures, not the protests.
A BIG part of the problem is that both sides treat this as a simple issue.
The pro-gun-control side thinks we can control deadly crime by controlling guns.
The pro-gun side refuses to accept ANY limitations on guns, but also turns a blind eye to their societal problems.
Nobody is really looking for an answer that will work.
** One of my pet proposals is to legalize drugs - put them on an equal footing with tobacco and alcohol. IMHO, crimes of funding drugs are now a bigger problem to society than the drugs, themselves. Legalizing and regulating drugs is bad, but not as bad as the crime associated with illegal drugs. Add drug treatment programs and work on demand reduction instead of supply intradiction. I suspect strife in South America would settle down, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer?"
;), who needs an Anything?
;)
Not to pick on you in particular (except, well, that I am picking on you in particular
The idea that things not specifically "needed" (as determined by whom?) are suspect or should need to be justified for some reason has implications that I don't like, most especially when applied blithely to weapons (potentially, at least) of self defense.
Who needs plastic bags for groceries? After all, (conventional) plastics rely on petroleum, and contribute to the dissipation of natural resources. [Ignore the considerations of price, convenience, shipping convenience, reusability, etc, that might lead a person or a business to prefer them.]
Who needs more than one child? The world has enough people, and any more mouths to feed are a net loss. If you want more, too bad, others have decided you don't need any. (Forced abortions in the western provinces of China.)
Who needs more than 2000 calories a day? It's unhealthy to overeat, and people who overeat (and then develop health problems) are a burden and drain on society.
Who needs more than 10 shirts? Can't those people just wash more often? They're depleting resources and spending their money inefficiently, and hurting all of us.
Who needs sharp knives? They're dangerous in the hands of lunatics.
Who needs a computer that is powerful enough to play a significant role in designing nuclear weapons?
I wish these questions were more rhetorical, but obviously some of them are not! And of course, who needs a Xerox machine? (Illegal to have such a thing during most of the history of the Soviet Union.)
Another snide but serious answer to "Who needs a gun designed to kill people?" is, "Well, the Swiss seem to think that they do, and they don't get invaded very often." Also, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, when they were being rounded up for extermination camps and -- bravely but ultimately unsuccessfully -- fought back with what weapons they *did* have. I don't mean to activate Godwin's Law here, I hope I've stayed just shy of it
To further tread that line; the question is not whether governments ever grow tyrannical and oppress the people they're supposed to be serving (at least when they make the gesture of claiming to be a servant in the first place), it's how often, to what degree, and under what circumstances. The Third Reich is only one of many such in the last 100 years. Stalin and others killed either more in absolute numbers or as a percentage of their country's / dominion's population.
Cheers (uh, if that is the right closing note),
Tim
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Banning the guns by name was meaningless. So are some of the restrictions, but what about these ones:
It's true that the assault weapons ban is not a very well written or well designed law. It focuses way too much on little details which may be completely irrelevant. On the other hand, it is trying to address a real concern.
If it is illegal to own an automatic weapon, but it is easy to buy a semi-automatic weapon that's easy to modify, then it's easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.
The page you link to says this:
Doesn't it make sense that it should always be that hard to convert a weapon to fully automatic?
Anyhow, if the assault weapons ban is so badly written, what alternative do you propose? No law at all? Or a better written law that targets assault weapons properly?
If you're calling a semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle", you're stupid.
If you're calling magazines "clips", you're stupid.
If you think that the 2nd Amendment is just for protecting hunters, you're stupid.
If you think that registration won't lead to confiscation, you're stupid.
If you're that damned stupid, why the hell are you even participating in this discussion?
You commie lib pricks.
Try taking the autos away from the illegal aliens first, then come after my AK.
SCREW
How can you compare a rapid fire handgun with a revolutionary war muzzleloader?
The more guns the less crime, look it up.
.45s.
Washington DC has the most crime and the most restrictive gun laws.
Almost no crimes are committed using these semi automatic rifles. Don't believe the mass media hysteria.
An assualt weapon, by definition, is capable of firing fully automatically (as long as the trigger is held down).
The ban affects semi automatic rifles that LOOK like military weapons.
Magazine capacity has little to do with the ability to shoot multiple targets. A double barrel shotgun is one of the most devastating weapons available. The ban on large capacity handgun magazines has forced folks to move from small caliber 9mms back to the more effective
The second ammendment means what it says.
http://www.gunowners.org/
Hitler, Stalin and Mao agree, gun control works.
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
First point: the 1994 "ban" didn't do anything. Since there's no "core technical difference" between a standard semi-auto hunting rifle like this Remington:
http://www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/7400w d.htm
and this "AR Pattern" rifle available in one of the *weaker* calibers Remington supports on the 7400 (the 308 Nato):
http://armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar10b.htm
The Remington is pictured with a 5rd magazine but 10rd that poke out of the bottom of the gun are available now and with the ban on 10+ magazines gone, they'll be available there soon.
Both guns are semi-auto, magazine fed. After midnight tonight, it will be possible to sell either with such accessories as bayonette lugs, flash dohickey on the end of the barrel, etc...none of which affect lethality.
Because the guns that "look scary" aren't technically different from those that look more "sporting" like that Remington (one of many examples I could show), back in '94 Congress banned certain "evil features" that were purely cosmetic, in an attempt to home in on the "evil looking guns" and leave the deer rifles alone.
Which made the law arbitrary and stupid, and is what's really causing it's death tonight.
Which leaves two questions:
1) Why would anybody want a "military pattern rifle" in the first place?
A: first, parts are widespread and cheap. They usually share at least some components and accessories with the full-auto military versions which are banned; as long as the parts in question don't add full-auto capability, they're legal.
Second, when rifles are engineered to be able to handle full-auto stresses and battlefield conditions via rigorous testing, they're tough as nails. Once the full-auto capability is stripped for the civilian market, they're even tougher as they don't need to cope with that. (Full-auto fire can wear out a barrel in just a few hundred shots in some cases, which is why real military machine gunners keep extra barrels with them for quick swaps.)
Why have a tough gun?
Because competitive shooters must practice a lot - practice levels beyond what hunting rifles can cope with. The vast majority of full-power rifle competition happens not with deer rifles or even high-accuracy target rifles, but with AR-pattern critters distantly related to the US military M16 family, hot-rodded for accuracy.
The Remington probably has a total lifespan of a couple thousand rounds. Less in the hotter calibers like 30-06 or 270Winchester.
AR-pattern rifle owners can sign up for a three-day class in riflework by nationally known instructors such as John Farnham, and shoot 1500 rounds in a three day weekend...and the gun will *probably* hold up. He has loaner spares just in case they don't, as that's one hell of a duty cycle...one that no "pure civilian origin" rifle could even hope to survive.
-----------
Which leaves the other, more controversial issue: the full-capacity magazines of 20 to 30 rounds, or the truly high-cap mags like the Beta-C drums of 75 - 150.
Who needs that?
Slashdotters of all people should know a critical thing: the majority isn't always right. If you thought otherwise, why don't we format all our Linux partitions and run Windoze? I mean, the market has spoken, right?
Spoken in favor of rank idiocy. "The market" is made up of the same technoturnips that try and find the "any key" when the screen says "press any key to continue".
That particular kind of idiocy is harmless. But every once in a while, the sheeple masses get violently stupid all at once. They riot in LA because of a court decision, or a bunch of morons decide to loot after a hurricane or other natural disaster.
Those are recent examples; in both, homeowners and business owners often sto
What I do have a problem with are weapons whose primary purpose is to fill an area with as much lead as possible. These weapons serve no useful sporting purpose--you may kill the deer, but you'll prolly hit 3 of your buddies and two of your tires as well--they are designed to kill a lot of people.
I say you're looking at the wrong thing because I don't care if a hunting rifle fires a heavier slug faster because that is not a weapon designed to kill many people. It's designed to kill one deer. I object to weapons that shoot low-velocity rounds that produce little recoil so you can just blanket an area in lead. What sporting purpose do these weapons serve short of giving a deer a heart attack?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
It's really sad when I as a Canadian can buy a gun that Americans can't. My "Law Enforcement Only" Bushmaster is a fun toy, but not exactly a practical gun for a criminal. It's not easy to hide, and doesn't have the sphincter tightening sound that racking a pump shotgun does. Much better as a defesive weapon...
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
The only real thing this law did was ban pistol grips, which is just annoying...
All the big bad machine guns you'll see related to this story are banned under other laws...
There are stacks and stacks of gun laws,
both federal and state laws...
so there will be no big change with this
one, single law gone.
The reasons for AWB, IIRC, were some high-profile shootings at office buildings (a CA law firm, and some such other place). As someone who works in a high-pressure office, I would not want someone who is untrained in weapons safety to get depressed and be able to just go buy the baddest-ass looking bad-ass semi-automatic weapon at the local gun shop and shoot up the office.
Don't believe that could happen? I was at IBM out in San Jose (Cottle Rd. campus) when they had a big round of layoffs and someone got depressed drove a car into a building. No, I don't think we should allow cars, as they serve a much more useful purpose. Nor do I think we should outlaw all guns, as they serve a useful purpose. But why not outlaw guns that are specifically designed to kill as many humans as possible? What useful purpose do they serve?
Shotguns and handguns are great for self-defense, rifles are great for hunting. But what are assault weapons good for? Why do soldiers use assault weapons and not shotguns? Because they are good for killing as many other soldiers as possible! I may not be a gun expert, but I am not stupid, either.
Yes, I realize that the AWB was flawed, and in that sense, I'm glad it was not renewed. If it were up to me, the US would pass a real assault weapons ban with real penalties like in DC if you are caught with an illegal weapon.
By all means, go ahead and keep a properly stored handgun or shotgun in your house. If someone breaks in and threatens you with deadly force, please kill him before he breaks into my house. But if you were going to keep a weapon for self-defense, would you really choose an AK-47 to defend your dark house!? Of course not. Sure, you might kill the intruder, but you'll also kill your wife, your dog, and 2 of your kids by the time you get done emptying your 30 rounds.
P.S. "But will someone please think of the collectors!" you say. Fine. Let the collectors collect. Just block the barrels so they cannot be fired.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
The rest of your post is just one big false dilemma. The choice isn't an all-or-nothing where either you can have all guns including assault weapons, or no guns at all. If it were up to me, you could have as many hunting and self-defense guns as your little heart desires. Why do you want to own an assault weapon, anyhow?
Look. I've said over and over I am not advocating outlawing all guns. But since you keep bringing it up, why don't you prove it! While you're proving it, make sure to explain why in 2002, Honolulu had the lowest homicide rate per 100,000 people of all US cities with at least 500,000 people, yet Hawaii has strict gun control (permit required to purchase any gun, registration of all firearms, and permit required to carry). For that matter, explain why Memphis was ranked #4 in homicides per 100,000 and TN has little gun control (no gun registration, no permit required to purchase). Milwaukee was ranked 8th, and WI has little gun control as well. California had Los Angeles ranked highly at #9 but San Diego and San Jose had low rates (ranked #28 and #30 out of 32, respectively). Explain that one.Maybe homicide rate is not so tightly correlated to gun control, after all? I'm certainly not finding any evidence to support a tight correlation. Maybe I should rethink my views regarding gun control? Maybe it really does work? Sure seems like it's working in Hawaii! Thanks for pointing that out!
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Your argument repeatedly returns to hardware, that there are attributes of hardware what you wish to prohibit but not "all guns".
It is time for you to define "assault weapon", since that is what you wish to prohibit.
It's not a machine gun or sub-machine gun, since that would be "assault rifle" and is already covered by law.
So what is it? Is it the black plastic you don't like?
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Do you know why California invented the "assault weapon" ban?
In 1992, a group of police beat the crap out of Rodney King.
They were later acquited of assault because, surprise surprise, it turned out that they were indeed "just following orders." It was, and likely still is, in their rule book to "hit the suspect until he stays down" even if it kills him.
During the ensuing riots, the police abandoned the city of Los Angeles to the rioters. Sorry folks, you're on your own. The police have no legal requirement to protect you (look it up, it's true).
The news cameras were still rolling, however. Lots of pictures of wide spread violence and looting, but not everywhere. There were islands of peace in the maelstrom.
Pictures of store owners and their employees and families defending their property and their customers with rifles made the evening news.
Mere citizens standing firm, peacefully, successfully, while the police cut and run.
The various government bureaucrats, politicians, and especially the police were furious! They looked at the pictures, saw that the shop owners had done nothing illegal, and decided to punish them.
So the bureaucrats looked to see what kind of weapons the shop owners had used so effectively, cataloged them, called them something nasty sounding which they hoped gullible citizens would confuse with machine guns, and decried how these things were "the weapons of choice of criminals".
That's why the definition of "assault weapon" is meaningless, it's based on nothing but looks.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I'd just like to say I love how the media and some police organizations would have you believe that the expiry of this ban allows "machine guns" to fall into civillian hands.
The basic fact is that machine guns in general for civillian use were first banned in 1934. In the mid 1980's (I think 1984), another law was passed limiting legal sale of machine guns to civillians with the proper clearances to pre-law dates.
Therefore, not only is the general populace barred from purchasing a machine gun unless subjected to FBI background checks and other measures, anyone who gains such permission is only allowed to purchase one built before 1984.
For more information, here's a link:
Gun Control: Machine Guns
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
One final comment for this thread, unless I see something particularly ludicrous that needs addressing, is a very good source of information on the history of the "gun culture" and gun control. The book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross is an excellent work of historical fiction. Ross takes actuall historical events dating from WWI onward, and describes their impact on a set of fictitious character, ranging from politicians to lawyers to big-game safari hunters. He goes into great detail about various legislative measures, but does not touch the gun control act, as the book was published prior to its implementation. This was in fact the first reference I had seen to the NFA (National Firearms Act). I highly recommend this book to anyone interrested in gun control, regardless of your stance. When I first started reading, I fell into the category of those who ride the fence on this issue: I felt some control was necessary, but could offer no reasonable suggestions as to where to draw the line. While reading the book, I simply could not believe some of the abuses and legal manipulation described, so I verified it with reliable third-party sources. This book made me aware of the events surrounding Ruby Ridge and Waco, and provided me with an interest in researching these matters. What I found was not only a government that would trample citizen's rights, but also not hesitate to use lethal and brutal force to keep its populace "in their place". Because of my knowledge of the abuses perpetrated by the US government against its own citizens, I was not surprised (although still completely appaled) to learn of the disgusting torture occuring in Guantanamo and Abu Gahrib, nor was I startled to hear American politicians discussing the "acceptable" use of torture, and to see a president of this once great nation seeking for ways to circumvent the Geneva Convention. But I digress. Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. You'll be skeptical of the events described. Do your homework. Verify their authenticity and accuracy. If you still want to give the government the names of gun owners, if you still want them to say what guns you may and may not own, if you still want to have bans on concealed carry, you must be quite mad.
_Guns and Violence: the English Experience_, Joyce Lee Malcolm
_More Guns, Less Crime_, Lott and Mustard, University of Chicago Press
_The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong_, John R. Lott
_Uniform Crime Statistics_, US Department of Justice
You might also drop in on http://www.fff.org/ for some excellent articles on the subject.