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."

Comments

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[hackstraw]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States, in his address to 2nd Session of 1st Congress.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.

nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip

I personally do not own weapons, don't want to. But I feel a little better knowing that there are those paranoid bastards out in the woods packing fully automatic weapons waiting for the government to get "really evil".

I personally feel as though murder should be decriminalized. Think about how much crime would be reduced and law enforcement's job would be made so much easier.

Now let the flame wars begin...

Not yet. 1st, it is not normal to want to kill someone. Aside from a psychopath that cannot feel empathy or guilt, It is against any human's natural will to kill someone. Its instinct to grab someone who steps out into the road, its not because we were taught this. It goes against instinct to go against self and species preservation.

By legalizing murder, it would keep people in check. Basic reinforcement theory says that learing takes place when the reinforcer (reward or punishment) is near the action. If Johnny kills Billy, and Billy's friends or family think that it was wrong for Johnny to kill Billy. Well, Johnny better watch his back!

I personally feel as though the incidence of murder would actually decrease if it were legal. Just a theory.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[0x0d0a]

SOrry, its not an either or thing. If you think weapons should be freely ownable, I should be able to own a nuclear bomb. The constitution doesn't forbid it, after all.

That's absurd. The Constitution was written in a time when nuclear bombs didn't *exist*. The game thory associated with the weapons of the times -- soldiers have rifles, citizens have rifles -- made guns a moderating influence. The game factors associated with nuclear bombs is *wildly* different from that associated with guns.

This is exactly the sort of thing reason that the judicial branch is allowed to interpret the Constitution -- to deal with technological advances.

For example, if the military gets the ability to run around with autonomous sniping helicopters and that becomes the main method of exerting military force, then civilians need to be able to have Stingers. That maintains the same balance as was present in the Constitution's authoring period.

Personally, I think civilians owning guns is not permitted by the constitution, and that militia means a state army. But I do think this is an area where compromises can be reached.

It's not a matter of compromise -- it can be *amended* if it's necessary to mean this. Please at least read and consider this -- the framers very clearly referred to an armed citizenry.

Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!

[AuMatar]

And the constitution was written when assault weapons and handguns didn't *exist*. SO the same logic that bans nuclear bombs can be used to ban them.

The constitution is quite clear- well ordered militias are allowed arms. Well-ordered means regulated, militias are strate armys. So each of the 50 states can have their own army, if they wish, and arm them. The stuff people spout about it being so people can revolt is pure bull, its a moddern idea espoused by a few far right nutjobs in the past century. There is no constitutional right to citizens having guns, so what they can have is pure comprimise.

I'm actually not in favo of getting rid of itizens guns entirely. But stopping fellons from getting them easily, requiring registration, making resell illegal (unless reregistering), and limiting the amount of damage a gun can do before reloading are all decent comprimises.