The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

[isshinwhat]

[rant]...was ridiculous and pointless.

Whether she was being facetious or not, Fantine wrote the following and I started thinking about it again:

The Brady Bill didn't last forever (double double darn it, now we have to worry about assault weapons in the streets.)

What's the difference between this gun:

And this one?

The top one is not banned and the bottom one was, because of a 10 vs 12 round magazine.

Or this rifle which would have been banned:

And this one?

The top one would have been banned, even though it holds the same number of a smaller caliber bullet and fires that smaller bullet less accurately...

The AWB was a perfect example of feel good legislation that served no purpose other than placate a group of people who had been sold on an ignorant idea by the media. For example, you get commentators on CNN making statements like, "Many, if not most cops believe that the assault weapon is just another danger in a very treacherous world..." ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/15/se.13.html). No kidding... Did anyone ever fall in a manhole before one was dug? No, therefore the world now has one more worry to content with and is more dangerous. Why not post contrary opinions like that that of Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, if your desire is only to present the news, "gun control has not worked in Washington D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed," (The Washington Post, March 22, 1996)?

When we start talking about banning assault weapons, many people are under the impression that we are talking about fully automatic weapons, but we are not. They are already very restricted and expensive, and their sale is tracked by the federal government...[/rant]
http://www.mossrifles.com/images/trr2.jpghttp://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/images-products-mr556

 

[Romans 13:3]

As I have said before, most people do not understand that the Second Amendment is about the people being a legitimate to the government, not hunting. Cities with the most gun violence have the most restrictive gun laws (excepting Gary, IN). Research has borne out that crime retracts when the public is armed, especially when the right to defend one's self is clearly defined by statute and decision, as in the case of Texas where a tax payer can fire on an offender with less restriction than law enforcement as a common citizen is not bound by Tennessee v. Garner.

I end with this question: If the Lord was a rifle shooter, would He ever have to adjust the windage?

 

[Fish and Bread]

I don't think there is any need for anyone to have their own personal Uzi for hunting or basic self-defense. A handgun or a rifle seems sufficient to me, in both scenarios. You only really need an Uzi if you're a gangster or a mobster, which aren't particular legal uses for weaponry.

Now, I'm sure there are a few more examples like the ones in the original post of things that, at least to the naked eye, seems kind of borderline to be banning, but, for the most part, what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban addresses is assault weapons, which should be banned.

I'd like to see anyone make the case that they "need" a machine gun. It doesn't seem very sporting to be mowing down deer or pheasants with an automatic weapon, and a handgun should be able to take care of a burglar adequately in most cases.

 

[isshinwhat]

I don't think there is any need for anyone to have their own personal Uzi for hunting or basic self-defense. A handgun or a rifle seems sufficient to me, in both scenarios. You only really need an Uzi if you're a gangster or a mobster, which aren't particular legal uses for weaponry.

So what you're saying is the people who were using them illegally will continue to use them illegally whether they are legal for the rest of us to buy new or not... Understood... ATF states that 93% of firearms used in crimes are purchased illegally. Criminals will continue to arm themselves whether they are legal or not.

I'd like to see anyone make the case that they "need" a machine gun. It doesn't seem very sporting to be mowing down deer or pheasants with an automatic weapon, and a handgun should be able to take care of a burglar adequately in most cases.

Thank you for proving my point: what part of the Assault Weapons Ban addresses machine guns?

Now, I'm sure there are a few more examples like the ones in the original post of things that, at least to the naked eye, seems kind of borderline to be banning, but, for the most part, what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban addresses is assault weapons, which should be banned.

The Assault Weapons Ban ONLY addresses firearms like the ones above, it does not address "machine guns." Each of the weapons that was banned operates just like any other semi-automatic weapon; pull the trigger one time, you get one bullet, not some devious "lead spray" coming at you at the rate of 650 rounds per minute. Take the threads out of the barrel of a semi-automatic AK-47 and it was legal, take two-four rounds out of a Glock magazine capacity and it was legal... Can I hide that Glock any less easily? Can I carry any fewer magazines? Does it fire slower now? According to a Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park study, the average number of pistol shots fired during a firearm assault was 3.2 to 3.7. Round up, that's 4 shots. What difference, then, does having a 10 v. 12 round magazine in a pistol make?

What about the "evil black rifles?" Do those threads and a flash suppressor make an AK or AR variant more deadly? How about the bayonet lug? When was the last time someone was speared in a last-ditch-effort neighbor v. neighbor bayonet charge caused by a dog who had pooped on the yard next door one too many times? We were sold on a useless piece of legislation because it made us feel safer, even though it did nothing to make us so.

 

[Romans 13:3]

An Uzi, at least in its fully automatic form, is already illegal for most folks. Perhaps one way to look at this issue is this analogy:

Does the average person need the most sophisticated computer available, the same computer that could encrypt beyond any known means of cracking? Probably not, but it most cases tech stuff is the owner's hobby. Do you need a rosary made of precious or semi-precious stones, or would a rosary of twine or plastic work?

The Uzi you mention would not be my first choice for home defense, but if someone wants to take one to a range, then I will want to shoot it if they let me.

As for fully automatic weapons, those legally held are in the hands of collectors or law enforcement. Certainly, semiautomatics have been converted to an automatic weapon, but this has always been illegal (since the 1920's anyway).

 

[isshinwhat]

If the Lord was a rifle shooter, would He ever have to adjust the windage?

 

[Fantine]

Bible quotes for peace--New Testament:

New Testament verses

*=teachings of Jesus
*Matthew 5:9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God *Matthew 5:38-42Do not resist one who is evil *Matthew 5:43Love your enemies; pray for persecutors *Matthew 26:52All who take the sword will perish by the sword *Mark 9:50Be at peace with each other. Luke 1:79(Jesus will) guide our feet into the path of peace. *Luke 6:27Love your enemies; bless those who persecute you *Luke 19:42If only you (Jerusalem) had known what would bring you peace*Luke 22:51Jesus said, "No more of this!! (striking with the sword)" *John 14:27Peace I leave with you...not as the world gives do I give...*John 14:30The ruler of this world...has no hold on me *John 16:2Anyone who kills you thinks he is offering service to God ...because they have not known the Father*John 18:11Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath..." *John 18:36If my kingdom were of this world...my servants would fight*Acts 5:29We must obey God, rather than man. *Romans 3:17No one seeks God; the way of peace they do not know *Romans 12:17Return no one evil for evil...live at peace with everyone *Romans 12:21Overcome evil with good *Romans 14:19Make every effort to do what leads to peace *1 Corinthians 2:6-8The rulers of this age...come to nothing...do not understand *1 Corinthians 7:15God has called us to live in peace. *1 Corinthians 14:33God is not a god of disorder but of peace. *2 Corinthians 10:3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. *2 Corinthians 10:4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. *Ephesians 2:17He preached peace to you who were far...and near *Colossians 3:15Let the peace of Christ rule in your heart...*1 Thessalonians 5:15Do not return evil for evil. *2 Timothy 2:24The servant of the Lord must be gentle to all*Hebrews 12:14Make every effort to live in peace with all men and be holy *James 3:18Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest/righteousness. *1 Peter 2:23...He (Jesus) did not retaliate...He made no threats *1 Peter 3:8Do not return evil for evil. *1 Peter 3:11Turn from evil; do good; seek peace; pursue it

http://peace.mennolink.org/youth/verses.html

Kind of puts a damper on that gun enthusiasm, doesn't it?

 

[Romans 13:3]

What about if you have an extra coat, sell it and buy a sword?

 

[Fish and Bread]

So what you're saying is the people who were using them illegally will continue to use them illegally whether they are legal for the rest of us to buy new or not... Understood...

That's not what I said. However, even if that's true, it still doesn't address the basic point that handguns and rifles are perfectly adequate for self-defense and for hunting, the legal purposes of guns.

Thank you for proving my point: what part of the Assault Weapons Ban addresses machine guns?

Semi-automatics, alright. I think many of the points made are still valid.

We were sold on a useless piece of legislation because it made us feel safer, even though it did nothing to make us so.

If it's worthless and has no real effect, why are folks so upset about it?

An Uzi, at least in its fully automatic form, is already illegal for most folks. Perhaps one way to look at this issue is this analogy:

Does the average person need the most sophisticated computer available, the same computer that could encrypt beyond any known means of cracking? Probably not, but it most cases tech stuff is the owner's hobby. Do you need a rosary made of precious or semi-precious stones, or would a rosary of twine or plastic work?

Computers and rosaries generally don't kill people. That's the difference. If Bob has a quad-core 8 gigabyte RAM computer, or whatever, that probably doesn't present a danger to society. Bob having a nice rosary definitely doesn't present a danger to society. Bob having an automatic or semi-automatic gun, now *that* could present some danger. It's excessive force for most situations.

For example, you're hunting with one of these powerful weapons, you don't really need that firepower to take down a deer, but with it, you just mow them down. Deer population plummets, we have to further limit hunting season. Alternately, maybe someone gets caught in the crossfire -- accidents happen -- with a rife, they may survive being shot, or be able to duck. With something more powerful unloading a round at them, there is a much higher risk of death.

Even a burglary, where I'm willing to basically stipulate that if someone gets shot in self-defense and happens to die, that's reasonable, a semi-automatic or automatic is probably excessive force. You shoot someone with a handgun and disable them, call the cops and the medics and maybe they go to the hospital, survive, and then serve their jail term (Though there is of course a chance they could be shot dead). A more powerful weapon, they are probably dead, and you've got to hope no one innocent gets caught in the crossfire, because they are probably dead too.

The Uzi you mention would not be my first choice for home defense, but if someone wants to take one to a range, then I will want to shoot it if they let me.

I can understand that. But I think the public interest is best served by no one (aside from the military, and maybe law enforcement in cases where gangs are armed with illegal weaponry) having ultra-powerful guns like automatics and semi-automatics. I'm not anti-gun -- I think hunting is a great hobby (Though I personally don't hunt) and provides some extra meat for folks who maybe don't get a lot of meat to eat usually. I also think self-defense is a valid reason for owning a gun. But handguns and rifles seem up to the legal tasks that people have for guns.

It's important to give people access to the tools they need to do things that they are legally entitled to do, but some prudence is a good idea, in my view, when determining just how much force people need. I mean, people have the right to buy adequate transportation, but that doesn't mean we need to legalize tanks. And, certainly, we aren't going to let people have their own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. There's a line to be drawn somewhere on this stuff, for the common good.

 

[isshinwhat]

Kind of puts a damper on that gun enthusiasm, doesn't it?

No

 

[Romans 13:3]

Right on the rosary and computer, but the point is that they are 'unneeded'. Most of the guns I think you are talking about would never be used to hunt. They are meant to kill people and their sporting purpose is at the range. I don't judge an computer's fiends hobby, why judge mine?

As for the powerful computer, kill someone probably not, but what about ID scams, bank fraud and the like. Maybe we need tighter controls on computers.

 

[Romans 13:3]

Right on the rosary and computer, but the point is that they are 'unneeded'. Most of the guns I think you are talking about would never be used to hunt. They are meant to kill people and their sporting purpose is at the range. I don't judge an computer's fiends hobby, why judge mine?

As for the powerful computer, kill someone probably not, but what about ID scams, bank fraud and the like. Maybe we need tighter controls on computers.

 

[Fantine]

No

That's OK. I just wanted to post where Jesus stands, to put this issue in some theological perspective.

 

[MrStain]

I don't think there is any need for anyone to have their own personal Uzi for hunting or basic self-defense. A handgun or a rifle seems sufficient to me, in both scenarios. You only really need an Uzi if you're a gangster or a mobster, which aren't particular legal uses for weaponry.

Now, I'm sure there are a few more examples like the ones in the original post of things that, at least to the naked eye, seems kind of borderline to be banning, but, for the most part, what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban addresses is assault weapons, which should be banned.

I'd like to see anyone make the case that they "need" a machine gun. It doesn't seem very sporting to be mowing down deer or pheasants with an automatic weapon, and a handgun should be able to take care of a burglar adequately in most cases.

Do you "need" the internet? ETA: I see someone else already made this point.

Seriously, where is this "need" clause you speak of in the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Fish and Bread]

Right on the rosary and computer, but the point is that they are 'unneeded'. Most of the guns I think you are talking about would never be used to hunt. They are meant to kill people and their sporting purpose is at the range. I don't judge an computer's fiends hobby, why judge mine?

As for the powerful computer, kill someone probably not, but what about ID scams, bank fraud and the like. Maybe we need tighter controls on computers.

Well, a powerful computer can be used for ill, but it can also be used to run computer programs with more features and graphics, to boot the operating system and existing programs more quickly, and to provide a machine that will still work for you in a few years when more new technology makes great demands on home computers. So, there is primarily a legitimate purpose that can be uniquely fulfilled by a powerful computer, and then secondarily the possibility that it could be misused.

When I look at a more powerful gun, even for range shooting, what can it really do that another gun can't in terms of legal use? We've already talked about why it's probably excessive force for self-defense or hunting. Range shooting, I'm not as familiar with, but people can still hit targets with a rifle or a hand gun, right? It might even me more sporting, in a way, than just unloading a round of semi-automatic or automatic fire at a target since you have to aim it just right and see the exact result of each shot clearly.

It seems like, sure, someone could use an automatic or a semi-automatic for an innocuous purpose, but that they only really seem to present a clear strong advantage over legal guns when used for less innocuous purposes.

 

[benedictaoo]

[rant]...was ridiculous and pointless.

Whether she was being facetious or not, Fantine wrote the following and I started thinking about it again:




What's the difference between this gun:

And this one?

None. and i understand your frustration.

 

[isshinwhat]

However, even if that's true, it still doesn't address the basic point that handguns and rifles are perfectly adequate for self-defense and for hunting, the legal purposes of guns.

Correct, and handguns and rifles like the ones in the OP were banned... And firearms are also used for sport, another legal purpose.

Semi-automatics, alright. I think many of the points made are still valid.

And I think none of them are.

If it's worthless and has no real effect, why are folks so upset about it?

Because it took firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens for no reason other than political gain.

Computers and rosaries generally don't kill people. That's the difference. If Bob has a quad-core 8 gigabyte RAM computer, or whatever, that probably doesn't present a danger to society. Bob having a nice rosary definitely doesn't present a danger to society. Bob having an automatic or semi-automatic gun, now *that* could present some danger. It's excessive force for most situations.

Then I'm going to introduce the Sports Car Velocity Protection Act. It will ban red vehicles because we all know red vehicles are more apt to be driven faster, it will also ban all Z-rated tires, any engine with more than 4 cylinders, and a displacement of greater than 2.0L ,unless you can show a need for such excessive displacement and horsepower. Upon passing of this legislation, all private transfer of such dangerous vehicles must be approved by the proper federal agency. Only through such strict measures can we protect the innocent men, women, and children who are carelessly mown down by persons who drive in excess of safe speeds or under the influence of drugs and alcohol. This measure will also protect the police officers who dutifully patrol our highways and byways, many of whom have given their lives in traffic accidents.

For example, you're hunting with one of these powerful weapons, you don't really need that firepower to take down a deer, but with it, you just mow them down.

So with a hunting rifle, which by the way holds the same number of bullets, is also semi-automatic, more accurate, and fires a larger projectile, you are safely and legally hunting... But with an "ugly black assault rifle" which fires a smaller, less powerful projectile, does not have the same range nor accuracy as a hunting rifle, you are "mowing them down." See my point here?

Deer population plummets, we have to further limit hunting season.

Same number of bullets in the OP weapons pictured and in rifles used legally for hunting, anyway.

Alternately, maybe someone gets caught in the crossfire -- accidents happen -- with a rife, they may survive being shot, or be able to duck. With something more powerful unloading a round at them, there is a much higher risk of death.

Once again, incorrect. It is a common complaint of the soldiers overseas that the round used in the M-16 variants is underpowered and not effective enough at stopping a target from further engagement. The bullet on the left is a 5.56.45mm round used in the AR-15 variant pictured in the OP, models of which were banned. The one in the middle is a 30-30 Winchester round, the a popular deer hunting round, and the one on the right is the round used in the hunting rifle shown in the OP, a .308 and probably the most popular deer hunting round. Which one pictured is more powerful, accurate, and has the longer range...? Hint: it's not the 5.56x45mm.

Even a burglary, where I'm willing to basically stipulate that if someone gets shot in self-defense and happens to die, that's reasonable, a semi-automatic or automatic is probably excessive force.

Why is a semi-automatic excessive force? What is excessive about pulling the trigger once and firing one bullet? This Remington 750 is a definate hunting rifle, is it excessive?

If so, what makes it more excessive than using this lever action rifle for self defense? Keep in mind both of them are hunting rifles which fire only one shot each time the trigger is pulled, have the same magazine capacity, and shoot the exact same bullet.

I can understand that. But I think the public interest is best served by no one (aside from the military, and maybe law enforcement in cases where gangs are armed with illegal weaponry) having ultra-powerful guns like automatics and semi-automatics. I'm not anti-gun -- I think hunting is a great hobby (Though I personally don't hunt) and provides some extra meat for folks who maybe don't get a lot of meat to eat usually. I also think self-defense is a valid reason for owning a gun. But handguns and rifles seem up to the legal tasks that people have for guns.

A semiautomatic IS a rifle, and many of them are used for hunting and shoot the exact same bullet and the exact same rate. Semi-automatic =/= assault rifle, that is a huge part of my problem with the bill, Constitutional issues aside. In the rifles pictured in the OP, what makes one ban-worthy and the other not?

And, certainly, we aren't going to let people have their own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

They are referred to as small arms for a reason... Nice Red Herring...

There's a line to be drawn somewhere on this stuff, for the common good.

Thank God that line is moved to a more appropriate place now... In light of the above post, what justification was there for having it where it was?

 

[Fish and Bread]

Seriously, where is this "need" clause you speak of in the U.S. Constitution?

The 2nd amendment was talking about muskets, which were the arms of the time. Logically, I'd go so far as to say that we could consider most rifles and handguns the successors of muskets, and probably protected. However, the right to bare arms has limits -- you can't construct an atomic bomb in your backyard, for example.

Correct, and handguns and rifles like the ones in the OP were banned.

Truth be told, I don't know enough about guns to really get into the nitty gritty with you about why certain guns fell under the ban and certain ones did not. However, I'm sure there was some criteria in place, right? Something that determined the line between an assult weapon and a regular weapon? And even assuming that maybe a few mistakes may have been made when it comes to individual gun models -- people could stilll get what they needed for hunting and self-defense, and the guns that would be excessive force for most situations were banned, so it largely achieved it's purpose, a few possible "screw ups" aside. If the screw ups could have been identified and corrected (assuming there were some), that to me might have been a better more moderate solution -- correcting what's wrong without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[isshinwhat]

That's OK. I just wanted to post where Jesus stands, to put this issue in some theological perspective.

Where did Jesus speak about armed self-defense, target shooting, and gun collecting as being morally reprehensible? I DO remember Jesus telling his apostles, "...he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword," that I do recall. He did not advocate going about willy nilly slaying evil-doers for the Kingdom of God, and He made clear that they were to be used in acord with His purpose when he told Peter to but away the sword because it was time for Him to fulfill the Sacrifice, but make no mistake, Jesus was not against the legitimate use weaponry, and I can't imagine he'd care if I took an M4 to the range, either...

 

[isshinwhat]

The 2nd amendment was talking about muskets, which were the arms of the time. Logically, I'd go so far as to say that we could consider most rifles and handguns the successors of muskets, and probably protected.

They weren't protecting the muskets, they were protecting an ideal that, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms," (Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution 1776). They believed that the Constitutional "...advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," was extremely important (James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46). Are we freemen not now to be trusted? Have we forgotten Ben Franklin's words that, "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," so quickly? Our founding fathers were not protecting muskets in particular, they were protecting freedom in general.

Truth be told, I don't know enough about guns to really get into the nitty gritty with you about why certain guns fell under the ban and certain ones did not.

And yet you are supporting legislation which limited my Constitutional right to bear arms. Do you not see the problem with that?

However, I'm sure there was some criteria in place, right? Something that determined the line between an assult weapon and a regular weapon?

They did, and it was based on fluff to placate and take advantage of a public who didn't "know enough about guns to really get into the nitty gritty." Supporters bought into the idea that there was truly a diference between the rifles and handguns which were banned and those who were not. I mentioned some of them, 10 v. >10 round magazines being illegal on handguns, for example. My entire point is there is no between the firearms in terms of effectiveness, only cosmetics, and that is not a reason to ban a firearm... Unless your selling an idea that is based on appearance rather than substance. In my view there was no baby in the bathwater to begin with.