Assault weapons ban

[PaulS1950]

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to own a truck - or any vehicle?
We have a constitutionally protected right to own guns that would be considered for common use in the military infantry. Those guns are protected because all able-bodied men are members of the reserve militia. Those members are required to report with their own arms that are in common use by the military when called. The AR-15 is the civilian weapon that most closely matches what the military uses. The general population is not currently allowed to own fully automatic weapons without paying an additional "tax" on the guns. Those that do pay that "tax" are allowed weapons that far exceed what the infantry carries in both caliber and firing rate.

 

[Snookie]

Assault rifles are for killing people. They are a weapon of warfare.

Only congress can declare war.

Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.

Oh yeah?

 

[Politico]

Then buy a shotgun or pistol and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.

All of this goes along the lines of "no one needs X for Y." Screw that logic. We dont apply it anywhere else, why here? Because people get killed with guns? People get killed with cars, rat poison, ladders, and a bunch of other shit too. It is totally about controlling people and the choices they can make. And screw that.

It's called "Public Safety" for the good of the "Public Interest".

I would rather call 911,
Rather than using a gun.

Then call 911 and keep your nose out of other people's business. Problem solved.

 

[PaulS1950]

Assault rifles are for killing people. They are a weapon of warfare.

Only congress can declare war.

Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.

Oh yeah?

That is not even a real gun! It is out of a comic book movie!
Really? is that the best you got? A comic book 357 assault rifle from Grimjack productions?
Please!

 

[Artiewhitefox]

People want to ban this, and that does not make better people. Evil people use a weapon on anyone calling it Good. They don't value an unseen thing called soul. Jesus kept himself on the strait and narrow refraining from using a weapon on anyone. That kept him from using the sword when betrayed. A weapon would not be used no matter how plenteous weapons were with Jesus in you.

 

[PaulS1950]

People want to ban this, and that does not make better people. Evil people use a weapon on anyone calling it Good. They don't value an unseen thing called soul. Jesus kept himself on the strait and narrow refraining from using a weapon on anyone. That kept him from using the sword when betrayed. A weapon would not be used no matter how plenteous weapons were with Jesus in you.

Except when He beat the money changers at the temple... He kinda lost it then.

The soul is never governed by anyone but your own faith. Only civil actions require outside influence to govern.

 

[Sactowndog]

The United States is NOT a democracy.

Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.


.

The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy.

It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they?

Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser.

If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.

Was there a vote taken? Link?
Let me ask the question and I will give you the poll result you want.

Do you favor laws that will only disarm honest American citizens and leave criminals in control of deadly weapons?

Anyway, even people backing an AWB concede it doesnt do anything to control violence. So it is an empty political gesture, with real infringements on liberty.

The whole point of the bill of rights is to protect the population from the majority! Saying we live in a democracy and therefore the will of the majority should prevail fundamentally misses the whole point of the bill of rights.

 

[PaulS1950]

Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too.
No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.

 

[Sactowndog]

The United States is NOT a democracy.

Thankfully, our forefathers saw fit to keep it from being so.


.

The US IS a democracy - it is just not a DIRECT democracy. It's a representative democracy.

It's also worth remembering that referendums are signs of a direct democracy - and plenty of states hold referendums, don't they?

Some 58% of American support tighter gun control laws - while 6% say they should be looser.

If you believe in the will of the people, then you are going to back the 58%.

Was there a vote taken? Link?
Let me ask the question and I will give you the poll result you want.

Do you favor laws that will only disarm honest American citizens and leave criminals in control of deadly weapons?

Anyway, even people backing an AWB concede it doesnt do anything to control violence. So it is an empty political gesture, with real infringements on liberty.

Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too.
No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.

The problem is given the war on "terror" the US government has developed an expertise in fighting an asymmetric war. The supporters of assault weapons state rightly that the people should not be massively out gunned by the government. Unfortunately we already are.

If the NRA were really about protecting the ability of the people to fight the federal government they would trade some reasonable limitations on assault type guns like biometrics for dispersing to the states technology like drone technology which has been so effective against al Quida and could easily be turned on the US populace.

 

[PaulS1950]

Anyone who believes the US is a democracy needs to educate themselves on the difference between the two. In a democracy the majority decides what is right for everyone but in a Republic the people have rights that are beyond reproach - even if 99.9% of the voters diagree.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decidine what is for dinner - in a Republic the sheep has the same rights as the wolves and the ability to defend itself agains the wolves. The wolves therefore eat something besides rack of lamb.

 

[yota5]

Black hawk, has presented a good comparison with prohibition to clearly illustrate the effects of bad, poorly thought out legislation. Organized crime loved Prohibition. It gave them the opportunity to makes lots of money. Thousands of people died. Organized crime used their ill gotten gains to finance operations in prostitution, numbers, murder for hire, illicit drugs, and to buy corrupt politicians. All of us know that this list will go on, and on. Now the brain trust in D.C. wants to give the bad guys an even greater opportunity. The consequences of the erosion of our 2nd amendment rights will have catastrophic effect on our society. I don't think that any of us want that. I for one am tired of defending my right to own firearms every time that a nut job takes to the streets. I think that all of us would support a new law that mandated life in prison for any one committing a crime with any weapon. That should get everyone's attention, and put the bad guys away so that they can't continue to harm our society.

 

[varelse]

​

 

[Circe]

I for one am tired of defending my right to own firearms every time that a nut job takes to the streets.

You don't have to feel defensive about owning ANY guns whenever there is another rampage mass murder. I don't think most of the public worries about people having a gun or two as a tool --- it's pretty much indispensable on a farm, for instance.

It's these guns that are manufactured to be as close as possible to the military mass killing machines intended to kill lots of people! Which are then used that way by the gun nuts themselves or their sons or their neighbor's sons who steal them. These are evil guns intended for bad, harmful purposes. The people who own them are NOT the good guys.

There is a reason why so many people call assault rifle owners "gun nuts." I mean, you gotta worry about somebody who owns guns and high-capacity magazines designed to kill lots and lots of people! I think, probably he wants to run out and kill me and mine like that guy in Alabama with the kid trapped in his bunker was doing, shooting at his neighbors and their little children, or run shooting into a McDonalds. It's a very scary thing to know there are so many men with those things running around free. Why are they doing that, you know? Why did they spend all that money to buy a gun meant to kill lots and lots of people? It can't possibly be innocent.

 

[Underhill]

Anyone who believes the US is a democracy needs to educate themselves on the difference between the two. In a democracy the majority decides what is right for everyone but in a Republic the people have rights that are beyond reproach - even if 99.9% of the voters diagree.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decidine what is for dinner - in a Republic the sheep has the same rights as the wolves and the ability to defend itself agains the wolves. The wolves therefore eat something besides rack of lamb.

Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.

Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there. And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.

A republic is ruled by representatives of the people. A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens. That is the difference in the purest sense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too.
No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.

No one is advocating ‘disarming the population,’ this type of hyperbolic nonsense only undermines useful debate.

 

[Underhill]

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

It just doesn't matter. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue. Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses. And both sides think the other is off their rocker. It's a matter of perspective.

I am on the fence.

I don't think anyone should take away guns. Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here. There are too many of them.

On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer. Mandatory gun locks. Mandatory training. Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws. These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights. And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.

These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.

Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.

I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage. But it seems unlikely. The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty. It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it.

But everyone needs to calm the fuck down. The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.

Should cops also have locks on their service weapons?
Should cops be limited to magazine capacity

I couldn't care less. Most cops never fire their guns. They also aren't held to the same rules as the rest of us. Swat routinely uses guns that are illegal to the average guy.

We aren't talking about cops.

 

[PaulS1950]

The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.

 

[Underhill]

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.

That has nothing to do with the example.

I'm not going to argue something so simplistic. Obviously the government regulates vehicles that are a danger to the public welfare.

As I said, this is a waste of time. People on both sides have a religious obsession with this issue.

 

[Underhill]

The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.

I'm not worried about legal gun owners.

I am worried about the 300k gun thefts. I think gun owners should be responsible and keep guns locked up at all times. It's not a difficult concept.

 

[PaulS1950]

Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.

Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there. And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.

A republic is ruled by representatives of the people. A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens. That is the difference in the purest sense.

If you were educated on the matter before us you would know that the bill of rights was added to let the government know that it was their job to defend the rights mentioned and those that were not.

The rights were and still are birthrites. There is nothing in the constitution that says the rights were granted by it or by any law - what the amendments say is that the rights are inherent to all living humans and they are outside the jurisdiction of the government and the people.
The biggest difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that the Republic recognizes individual rights that are beyond the powers of government and even the people themselves. That is why the nineth amendment was added - they couldn't list all our rights so they covered them in the nineth.

"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue."

I bolded the most important part for you so you wouldn't have too hard a time finding it.