Ban Assault Weapons

“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?

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.

“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.

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 me? Seriously?

Please explain why? I’m curious.

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.

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

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’.

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.

“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?

“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!

Here’s a great test to see how much new gun control you think is necessary

“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…

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.

Obviously you’re teaching special ed.

Geezer,

Don’t forget the increased strain on logistics (assuming the enemy forces actually care about their wounded).

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.

“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?

“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.

“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…..

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.

All individual rights are balanced against the rights of others and of society as a whole.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Quickly re-loaded, bullet propelling devices.

Therefor, more people can be killed at a quicker rate.

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.”

Now, why do you need 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?

“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….

“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.

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?

“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?

Oh are we going to play the “spelling nazi” now? Are your claims that weak you are resorting to that pathetic ploy?

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.

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.

“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?

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:

However, there are guns out there that are purely designed for inflicting mass casualties and cannot be justified as hunting or self-defense weapons.

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.

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.

DMM: The militia *is* BYOG. I am the militia. You are the militia. Read 10 USC 311.

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.

“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…

“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.

“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.

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)?

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!

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?

“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.

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?

“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.

“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.

“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?

“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.

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.

Do not attempt to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time annoys the pig.

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.)

My bad–Joe Huffman!

“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’…

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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?

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.

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.

“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.

I’ve tried to give your side a fair-hearing, but statements like that just make me doubt your sanity.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

“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.

Did one of the Nigerian ambassador email scammers write that? I kind of want a ‘Demonazi’ bumper sticker now.