Topic awaiting preservation: Assualt weapons ban to expire...

I find it intersting that these two headlines sit side by side on teh front page of CNN -

U.S. crime rate holds steady at record lows

Assault weapons ban to expire Monday

I'm wondering what people think of the expiration of the ban.

The biggest problem, IMO, is not whether or not the ban expires, but the simple fact that the democratic process is being circumvented by not even scheduling a vote on the issue, as was intended.

I care far more about the freedoms that were trampled when the ban was put in place.
No one deserves a vote on this.
No ban on any ownership rights, period.

Government deserves no say in ownership rights, in any matter, in any time period, for any reason, ever.

I disagree Dan. I think certain items should be regularted. AK-47s and Uzis aren't used for protection or for hunting. They're used to kill people - lots of people. Items like this should be no freer to the general population then nuclear weapons. Lets face it, they have the same purpose.

The ban will expire tonight. Trying to circumvent the second ammendment right before an election just ain't gonna happen. I wonder why that is if if it's such a no brainer as the ban supporters seem to believe.

quote:

---

Lets face it, they have the same purpose.

---

If that's to kill you can say that about a lot of things, there's a marked difference in scale between the two.

Assault weapons availability is not an issue in Switzerland, is it? Last I knew they were standard government issue there. I'd be interested to know more about that country's situation and and take on the whole issue.

What is being banned isn't important.
Freedom has to be unlimited to the point where one person acting on his freedoms directly interferes with another persons ability to act on his own freedoms, and only at this point should there be laws. Otherwise there is no freedom at all, regardless of the insignificant privileges the government thinks we're well behaved enough for.

Issues that don't immediately and directly affect all the people in the nation cannot be voted on, because we can't let 51% of the population limit the choices available to everyone.

If the social climate is completely unfavorable to the sale of a specific commodity, then it will not be profitable for that commodity to be sold. On the other hand, if there is a market for a product, the market for it does not rely on deception, and it is a fair and competitive market, then it?s up to the consumer.

quote:

---

If that's to kill you can say that about a lot of things, there's a marked difference in scale between the two.

---

There's a world of difference between having the ability to kill and being created for the sole intent of killing. Weapons like AK-47s, uzis, and nuclear warheads were designed soley to kill large amounts of people. They have no place in the hands of private citizens.

See I felt that this ban was put into place because it did interfer with other people freedoms. The freedom it affected was the first thing in the bill of rights, "Life" as it caused some peoples inability to continue to live to be affected it also caused all the other freedoms to become null and void, thus the reason for the ban.

This isn't about owner ship rights this is about life rights. I feel that banning all guns would make it a whole lot safer. You have your aguement about a knife being able to commit murder, or a car being able to commit murder. But I need a knife to cut my food to eat, or to perform household maintenance and a car is used to get me around. The only purpose of a gun is to kill, you have the arguements about hunting and about protection. These seem almost silly, you do not need to hunt anymore, you can go to a grocery store and purchase any of the food you need. And you wouldn't need a gun for protection if those who were going to break into your house didn't have a gun.

There is then the "guns don't kill people, people kill people." What a pleasantly shitty arguement. I think it might have been a whole lot easier with the gun. I mean the car tends to not fit into a school locker, and there is a good chance that you can run away from the person with the knife and the baseball bat.

I also feel that the second ammendment is null and void in this day and age as well. The right to bear arms was designed not to protect hunting, or not to prevent home invasions, but to allow for a millitia to be created to over throw a tyranical govenrment. Well I don't think any millitia could buy enough weapons to overthrow the government. Unless you are now purchasing attack heli's, tanks, nuclear submarines and tamahack cruise missles as a part of your second ammendment rights.

Many of you might not live in a tough area where murder is plentiful. But the drive bys that consist of someone shooting a hand gun with 9 bullets out the window of a car beats the hell out of a driveby with an auto-matic weapon that unloads 100 rounds in a second. Less little kids tend to be killed in the crossfire when only 9 shots are being released instead of 100.

Take a look at some real life homicide photographs, your opinions on gun control might change, because you will realize that on this issue it isn't about ownership rights it is a right to life issue, and people are being murdered because of this issue.

Dan @ Code Town

"They have no place in the hands of private citizens."

yeah yeah, 'all power stems from the people', to quote my countries costitution's first paragraph... of course we're not even allowed to own the proverbial southern redneck shotgun.

quote:

---

Farnsworth: "So what are you doing to protect my constitutional right to bear doomsday devices?"
NRA Guy: "Well, first off, we're gonna get rid of that three day waiting period for mad scientists."
Farnsworth: "Damn straight! Today the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student! Where will it end?!"
NRA Guy: "Amen, brother. I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax. For duck huntin'."

---

quote:

---

These seem almost silly, you do not need to hunt anymore, you can go to a grocery store and purchase any of the food you need.

---

I don't think it's rather needing to as much as it is a lot of people's preference to enjoy hunting as a sport. Just as one would enjoy fishing, not because they are hungry or need fish, but because they enjoy the sport.

I could never find entertainment in killing something, but I'm open minded to those who hunt sportingly. I respect people's rights to own guns. And I don't think there is a reason why gun's should be prohibited. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. That's why this subject is so contraversial. On one hand you have people that use these guns responsibly and safely for hunting purposes. On the other hand you have people who are taking advantage of this system and using hunting tools as devices for murder.

What it all comes down to is: If people want to kill people, god damnit they're gonna kill people. Guns don't kill people, people do. And while AK-47's, Tech-9's, and Uzis are all used for the soul purpose of killing, it still takes a person to pull that trigger. If we outlaw guns, people are just going to find something else to murder with.

I think the problem is that we live in a country where fear is capitalized. People market other people's fear, by selling guns, door locks, GPS tracking systems, you name it. Americans today are so stuffed after the media has fed them some horrible news, to the point where they have to gather that information rutinely. Americans will tune in every day to hear about someone elses child being abducted, someone elses father dying from cancer, someone elses spouse dying in the WTC. And then when it's over and they've had enough they thank God everyday that they aren't someone else. They practically get off knowing that somewhere far away, there is evil.

And then that one day comes along. The day they're put in a situation where they become that someone else, and all that prebuilt self-disillusion of the thought that it will never happen to them, puts them in a total state of vulnerable fear.

Acknowledge evil's presence in our world.

Acknowledge it. Don't ignore it, don't let it own you, and certainly don't let it be you.

quote:

---

I don't think it's rather needing to as much as it is a lot of people's preference to enjoy hunting as a sport. Just as one would enjoy fishing, not because they are hungry or need fish, but because they enjoy the sport.

---

We're talking about two different things Insider. People don't hunt with uzis.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm just pro-common sense. Guns SHOULDN'T be given to just anyone. Guns should be given to those who have proven to be responsible. I don't feel your word is good enough reason to assume you're responsible so I support background checks. The same goes with which guns are sold in this country. Theres a huge difference between an average handgun and an AK-47. I lob AK-47s, uzis, and the like into the same catagory as nuclear & chemical weapons. What is the purpose of an uzi? To kill large amounts of people immediately. What catagory does that fit into? Weapons of mass destruction.

Well I can tell you this Jestah,

If more guns meant a safer country, America would be one of the safest. But it doesn't, and America isn't.

So I can agree with you that I don't think AK-47s and Tech-9s should serve a purpose, but you have to understand that it isn't just your decision to make.

I'd have to weight in on the 'nay to assult and semi automatic weapons' side of this debate.

Read this: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/

And then tell me these things are a good thing to have about.

I agree, bolt action rifles and the like should be kept for sports, hunting, and for farmers to put down their livestock if the situation warrants it. But do we really need anything more? Why do you need a weapon that unloads that many bullets that quickly? The only reason I can see would be to cause vast amounts of damage to many things in a short amount of time, which isn't related to sports, hunting, or the needs of a farmer to put down livestock. The only thing you'd use them for is killing other people, or massacring a flock of sheep or something as equally insane and destructive.

And that's exactly what these things are. Weapons of destruction. Not weapons of sport, no general utilities or tools. Devices specifically made for the destruction of living things.

As for general ownership, bugger em, go to a museum - just like you would if you wanted to see an M60 up close - there's absolutely no reason why someone *needs* a weapon like that.

But this is America. Even if someone doesn't *need* a weapon like that they should be able to own one even if they *want* to.

(Edited by InSiDeR on 09-14-2004 13:32)

quote:

---

As for general ownership, bugger em, go to a museum - just like you would if you wanted to see an M60 up close - there's absolutely no reason why someone *needs* a weapon like that.

---

Except for the revolution of course... Though I must admit that well used sniper rifles usually do a better job on that.

Why should someone have the right to own weapons like that? Should they have the right to own nuclear weapons?

Any person, in a post-19th century world, who thinks that an untrained citizen's militia can overthrow a professional 1st world military (regardless the weapondry available) is completely out of touch with reality.
In 1991, Iraq had one of the largest, well-armed professional military in the world. The (mainly) US forces flew in and established relative control in a matter of weeks. Did they establish total control on the ground? no. That's very tough to do.
Still, even the deadliest infantry pieces (the Browning M2 comes to mind) are no match for airpower and cruise missles.
If you want an armed revolution in a modern state, you better have the pros on your side.

That being said, in the US we have a long history of gun rights, and there is absolutely no reason at all to be done with that. None.
Guns are a part of the social fabric in the US. They are part of who we are. Just because some minority of the people can't handle the responsibility does not mean everybody does without.
I grew up around guns. I own several, and have since I was a kid.
I don't hunt, and I have no intention of starting an armed revolution.
I do target shoot and am better than average with a 12 ga. (against clay pigeons, anyway =).

I've been shot by a maniac farmer who though I was throwing rocks at his cows when I was 15 (I wasn't). I still have scars on my arm and back to prove it.
I've been threatened with a 9mm. (That jackass forgot that guns hold their relative advantage only at a distance, and ended up with a broken arm, a smashed face and skull, a crushed larynx, and probably a half-dozen broken ribs.)

So, I've seen both sides of the argument, up close and personal. After all that, I am very much for (responsible) gun rights. What does that mean? It differs very much with respect to location. In downtown St. Louis (a relatively populated metropolitan area) it's probably not OK to go out shooting your .30-30 in the backyard.
In Warrenton (a mostly rural, quite distant "suburb" of St. Louis, about 60 miles to the west) it's probably OK to shoot 30 rounds from your semi-auto mini-14 (w/ flash suppressor and collapsable stock).

In either case, common sense needs to be used. You have background checks. You have licensing that's fair, cheap and practical. If someone wants to own an M-16, the regulations should be a little more strict than if they want to own a Remington double barrel 12 ga.
If someone wants to bring a semi-auto pistol into an urban area, the restrictions are going to be greater than that same gun in a rural environment. That's just common sense.

There is no one answer. That's 80% of the problem. Some people are coming at this question from perspective of safe, responsible, law-abiding gun ownership. Some are coming at this question from the perspective of the destruction guns and their owners are causing in some of America's most crime-ridden areas.
Both sides are correct in their assessment of the problem, but more often than not, neither side wants to even admit the other side exists (much less do anything about it!).

There needs to be a focus on safe, responsible, accountable gun ownership, that makes sense for the environment. In the right hands, in the right environment, with the proper training, any gun can be safe and enjoyable.
If any of those three (hands, environment, training/mind) are wrong, any gun is deadly.

quote:

---

Guns are a part of the social fabric in the US

---

Like beer? Should they have a sticker on the bottom of M4s and AK47s saying
"Take hostages' lives and perform drive by shootings responsibly"?

Just so that you can have your right to own a gun, you're also depriving many people of the right to live, and stay alive. These guns are good for not much else than shooting humans, and to that effect should probably just be in Firing Ranges etc.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

The quesion, as always, is where to draw the line.

The line must be drawn, or we are not a responsible society.

Where to draw that line is a very tough issue, and I am rather torn on this particular one. On the one hand, our constitution does indeed assure us the right to "keep and bear arms".
Ammending the constitution to limit the rights of the people is not something to be taken lightly. It's only been done once before, and anyone should be able to recall the results of that...

Now, you cannot logically say that allowing people to own guns infringes on other people's right to "live". That's just silly. It is absolutely true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Obviously, guns help. But it is still a matter of the person using the weapon that is at issue.

Now, on the other hand, it is illegal - and remains so after the lapse of this ban - to own automatic weapons. What's in question here is semi-automatic weapons. I can't see any valid reason for any private citizen to own one. As stated, the right to bear arms was added to the constitution for the sake of keeping a "well regulated militia", which is a benefit to the government by having people arm themselves at their own expense rather than supplying a large army quickly in time of need, and a benefit to the people by allwoing them to defend against a tyranical government.

Neither situation applies today. But what about in the future? What if the time comes when war is on our soil? What about the day when the military power of the US is not what it is, and a time for revolution *does* arrive?

I hate to see such weapons easily accessible, personally. But I think that infringing on a constitutional right because of a relatively small group of irresponsible people is short-sighted.

...and it's not ALL semi-autos that are the subject of this "Assault Weapons" ban. Actually, it has nothing to do with the action of the gun (autoload, bolt-action, lever, pump, etc) It has to do with a lot of peripheral things.

Actually, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:
* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.


For pistols, the law bans those which have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features:
* Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer (actually HAVING a silencer, on the other hand, has been closely regulated since the 1930s)
* Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
* Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
* Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm

Finally, there is a ban on "high capacity magazines", specifically defined as those which carry more than 10 rounds.

When people talk about owning Uzis and M-16s, they are completely and totally either:
a) ignorant of the facts
b) deliberately clouding the facts
Uzis and other guns capable of fully-automatic fire ("machine guns") were put under severe restrictions in the mid 1930s ('34, I think).

I'm not a fan of guns, personally. They scare the hell out of me. Or rather, what people can do with them scares the hell out of me. But it's the people, not the weapon that are really the problem.

I'll echo DL's sentiments:

quote:

---

I hate to see such weapons easily accessible, personally. But I think that infringing on a constitutional right because of a relatively small group of irresponsible people is short-sighted.

---

Murder didn't stop because semi-automatic weapons were banned. Those who couldn't get them simply found another means to do what they wanted to do.

I don't see where these weapons are a Constitutional right.

The Constitution says: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to bear any and all arms. Nor does it say anything about regulating the freedom to bear arms. We have the freedom to vote. That freedom is regulated. We have the freedom of speech. That freedom is regulated.

To say its un-Constitutional to regulate the second amendment is pretty short-sighted IMO.

The freedom to keep and bear arms is regulated to a very vast extent, and nobody here is saying anything about *not* regulating it. I don't see where you're drawing that from...

As I stated, the question is where to draw the line.

Do you have a good answer for that Jestah?

My point in regard to the constitution is simply that the 2nd amendment isn't going to go away. Which simply brings us back to the point of how to effectively regulate it.



(Edited by DL-44 on 09-15-2004 20:21)