"Assault Weapons"

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Hi all! I thought I'd see what you all think about a buzzword in the US these days:

Assault Weapons

First of all, let's make sure we understand some firearm basics. There are a few broad classifications of firearms. I warn you, these are the VERY BASIC basics. You should know them, but I will put them here anyway.

Firearm - A gun, rifle, handgun, or any weapon from a shot is discharged by the force of an explosive substance, as gunpowder.

Caliber - The diameter of the projectile fired from a firearm. Measured in 1/10ths of an inch.

Rifle - A rifle is a shoulder firearm. Law requires that a rifle have a barrel of 16" or longer. With the stock, a rifle is several feet long. A rifle also weighs several pounds. Thus, the rifle is fired with two hands to accommodate its weight and bulk. Rifles range in caliber from .17 inch to .577 inch.



Let's look at a few features. The wooden part, which is gripped by the shooter, is the stock. The rear of the stock is the butt, which is held against the shoulder while firing. At the bottom of the stock is the trigger, surrounded by a round strip of metal (trigger guard). Protruding from the stock is the barrel. When a bullet is fired, it speeds through the barrel and exits, well, the end. At the rear end of the barrel is the chamber. The chamber is the space where a cartridge is loaded into the firearm and locked into the barrel in preparation for firing. There are a variety of different ways that this is accomplished.

Handgun - A handheld firearm; a pistol or revolver. Handguns have barrels ranging from 3" to 10" or more. Handgun calibers range from .17 inch to .50 inch. Hanguns weigh from a few ounces to several pounds.



You should be able to get the idea of how to use the handgun pictured. I won't go into an explanation; I would if I could mess with the picture to have arrows pointing to various parts, etc., but I can't do that right now.

Moving on to very slightly more complicated

Here are some important terms:

Single-shot - a firearm which holds one round; such a firearm has no clip or storage for additional ammunition; one round must be placed in the chamber after each shot.

Semi-automatic - a firearm which contains a magazine that holds multiple rounds. A semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each pull of the trigger.

Automatic - a firearm which contains a magazine that holds multiple rounds. The trigger of an automatic firearm must only be pulled once, and will continue to fire until all ammunition is expended.

Note: there are other types of firearms, such as bolt-action rifles and single-action revolvers, which contain magazines but must be cocked for each shot. Read up on 'em if you are unfamiliar.

Just what is an assault weapon? For our purpose here, an assault weapon is:

A military-style semi-automatic firearm; a firearm included in the following criteria under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of '94:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine

I will move on to my own views in a moment.
Although, I must hasten to add that the grenade launchers mentioned above are already unlawful to own except with a very stringent checkout from the FBI and a billion other things.

Grenade launchers were added to this legislation because some clueless Senator saw one in a movie once.

Nobody is running around with grenade launchers these days.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

The thing is, "assault rifles" sold in the US are no different than hunting rifles. They work the exact same way, as it is illegal to have 3-round-burst or full auto guns outside the military, so they are semi auto.

[Phier]

The thing is, "assault rifles" sold in the US are no different than hunting rifles. They work the exact same way, as it is illegal to have 3-round-burst or full auto guns outside the military, so they are semi auto.

But they LOOK scary and thats whats important to people without a clue beyond the movies.

[magickyleo101]

Is you point just that the wording of firearms restrictions captures some firearms (like the .22 you mention) that actually aren't very dangerous?

Because I really don't see how that's going to be a very compelling criticism if that's all you're saying.

The vast majority of regulatory laws (speed limits, parking restrictions, food preparation requirements) are written in a way which make illegal some behavior which by itself probably isn't that bad. We do that because a law with really clear (the term used in law school is "bright line") wording is easier to apply than a law with fuzzy wording which requires us to look at things on a case by case basis.

So, for example, some cars/drivers are capable of safely going faster on a given road than others, but the speed limit is the same for all cars/drivers. We do that because it's easier to say "You were going 65 so you broke the law) than it is for us to evaluate whether the speed you were going was safe given your car and driving experience. Maybe you have a really agile car, and you're a professional race-car driver, and even though you were going 100 mph you were being safe. It doesn't matter, because society doesn't want to invest the resources to have to figure out whether you were being safe.

Writing laws like that also makes it easier to tell as an individual whether you're breaking the law.


So it's the same thing with the .22 you mention. I agree that the gun is probably safer than some legal guns, but why should society have to waste money making a determination of the safety of every single gun? There are plenty of legal guns to choose from as it is.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

EDIT: I have given DETAILED explanations dealing with WHY "assault weapons" have a variety of practical uses for the law-abiding civilian which are not met by other firearms.

These explanations are on page 4, post #78, and page 6, post #109.

Also, I have dismantled his argument that if a law's benefits are negligible, yet it's cost is also negligible, the law should be enacted.

This is demonstrated on page 6, post #104, and the following 2 or 3 posts.

Is you point just that the wording of firearms restrictions captures some firearms (like the .22 you mention) that actually aren't very dangerous?

Because I really don't see how that's going to be a very compelling criticism if that's all you're saying.

No, that is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the AWB is so grossly inconsistent that it solves NOTHING.

The vast majority of regulatory laws (speed limits, parking restrictions, food preparation requirements) are written in a way which make illegal some behavior which by itself probably isn't that bad. We do that because a law with really clear (the term used in law school is "bright line") wording is easier to apply than a law with fuzzy wording which requires us to look at things on a case by case basis.

So, for example, some cars/drivers are capable of safely going faster on a given road than others, but the speed limit is the same for all cars/drivers. We do that because it's easier to say "You were going 65 so you broke the law) than it is for us to evaluate whether the speed you were going was safe given your car and driving experience. Maybe you have a really agile car, and you're a professional race-car driver, and even though you were going 100 mph you were being safe. It doesn't matter, because society doesn't want to invest the resources to have to figure out whether you were being safe.

Writing laws like that also makes it easier to tell as an individual whether you're breaking the law.

Agreed. So we are not allowed to possess automatic weapons. We are not allowed to carry firearms without proper licensing. We are not allowed to shoot each other.

That is no reason to broadly ban a whole class of firearms on a cosmetic basis.

So if they're making one pointless ban, what will they do next?

They will say, "oh, that ban wasn't broad enough, that's why it didn't work."

Then they will ban something else. See? They're not stupid enough to try to ban firearms alltogether; they'll pick at it bit by bit.

So it's the same thing with the .22 you mention. I agree that the gun is probably safer than some legal guns, but why should society have to waste money making a determination of the safety of every single gun. There are plenty of legal guns to choose from as it is.

Your right, it shouldn't waste the money. In fact, they should abandon the entire AWB as a dreadful waste of money.

The AWB campaign is based on concealing reality and promoting emotions.

[magickyleo101]

No, that is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the AWB is so grossly inconsistent that it solves NOTHING.


Agreed. So we are not allowed to possess automatic weapons. We are not allowed to carry firearms without proper licensing. We are not allowed to shoot each other.

That is no reason to broadly ban a whole class of firearms on a cosmetic basis.

So if they're making one pointless ban, what will they do next?

They will say, "oh, that ban wasn't broad enough, that's why it didn't work."

Then they will ban something else. See? They're not stupid enough to try to ban firearms alltogether; they'll pick at it bit by bit.



Your right, it shouldn't waste the money. In fact, they should abandon the entire AWB as a dreadful waste of money.

The AWB campaign is based on concealing reality and promoting emotions.

If you're saying that the AWB is overly narrow in that it fails to pick out the sorts of guns that a criminal is likely to use, then obviously it ought to be expanded (my guess is that is originally included more restrictions but was watered down by the NRA). [Probably they should ban everything with a detachable magazine, but I doubt that'll happen any time in the near future.]

That said, even if you don't think that the AWB does lots of good, what harm does it do? Again, there are plenty of legal guns to choose from.

[EDIT: To expand on the last point, if you just think that the bans are cosmetic then you can presumably still accomplish whatever legitimate goals you had for your guns, even under the AWB. The gun you use, say, to hunt just won't look the same way.

And if there are goals that are frustrated by the AWB, that suggests the effect of the ban is more than merely cosmetic.]

[Oldgamer]

But they LOOK scary and thats whats important to people without a clue beyond the movies.

Exactly.

Take a Ruger Mini-14, remove the wooden stock and 10-round rotary magazine and replace them with a folding stock and a 40-round magazine, and the average person looks shocked and says, "Ooh! An assault weapon ...". If it looks "military", it's an assault weapon, to most people.

My favorites for home defense:

Depending on the neighborhood, a .40-cal semi-auto handgun works well (please don't hold the thing sideways like the gang-bangers!). If you are a competent marksman, however, a .357-magnum revolver with +P hollowpoints is the ticket (the S&W Model 65 fits most hands).

However, if you live out in the country where there's no one in the next apartment to get blown away, a 12-gauge pump shotgun will take out anything (except for a Terminator, of course). Use a pump instead of a semi-auto, because the semi's tend to jam. Pump the shotgun with "authority", and there will never be a jam.

EDIT: Although I used to have a different attitude towards the Barrett .50-cal rifle, I rather think that the weapon has only a military use. I've used the M-105, and even had occasion to try the XM-106 (heavier than the .50), and they shouldn't be in civilian hands.

[magickyleo101]

@Ariovistus Maximus, Captain Jin, Viking Prince & Mango55:

The thread is spiraling out of control in terms of the length of each post with all the quotes, so I'm going to consolidate some in this post. Let me know if there's something important you think I've dropped.

We've had three points of dispute emerge over the course of our conversation:

1) Whether the term "assault weapon" has content. We seem to agree that it does, so I'll drop that.

2) We've had a dispute about the CONSTITUTIONAL validity of the AWB; that is, whether the AWB violates the 2nd Amendment.

3) We've had a dispute about the POLICY soundness of the AWB; that is, whether the benefits to society of the AWB justify the costs such a ban imposes.

WHETHER THE AWB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

We've hit on three points so far in the conversation, and until now it's been enough for us to address the constitutional issues somewhat sporadically and in a disorganized manner. However, at this point the constitutional issues are becoming complex enough that there's really no way to address them without laying out the proper framework. Thus, this part is rather long (I apologize in advance for that).

As for the three argument you guys have presented so far, we have:

1) An argument about what the constitutional "default" is (i.e. whether we need a reason to ban or a reason not to ban). (made by Viking Prince and Mango55). Viking Prince puts it fairly well, so I'll quote him:

The government is to be restricted and contained to perform only the actions authorized by the citizens. Citizens are to be free unless there is a clear need to restrict and contain to protect the rights of other citizens.

It in not up to the citizen to show need for an action. Why not ban all red colored clothing? Should a citizen be required to then show a need for red colored clothing?

2) We had an argument about whether assault weapons are even covered by the 2nd Amendment.

2) We had an argument about whether the AWB would be constitutional, even if all weapons were covered by the 2nd Amendment (i.e. whether assault weapons would fall within an exception to the amendment). This has two sub arguments:

1. Does the 2nd amendment even apply to assault weapons?
2. If it does, does it make the AWB unconstitutional?

So let's start with the background. There's actually an important legal difference here depending on whether it's one of the state's or the federal government making the law. The AWB was a federal law, so most of this will focus on federal law analysis. I suggest that you consult the flowchart I made since you're getting about 3 months of Constitutional law in about 20 minutes here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A) DOES THE FEDERAL GOV. HAVE THE POWER?

The federal and state governments differ fundamentally in how governmental power is allocated to each. Logically, there are two ways you can define the power of a government - by inclusion (saying "the government has the power to raise and army, and make a postal service, and build roads) or by exclusion (the government can do anything except X, Y, Z).

The powers of the federal government are defined partially by inclusion (e.g. article 1, section 8 powers) and partially by exclusion (the bill of rights). The powers of the states are defined pretty much entirely by exclusion (the bill of rights).

So when we're evaluating the AWB, we apply a two step test when we ask what the federal government's default is:

1. First, we ask whether the ban falls within the scope of the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.
2. Second, assuming it does fall within a power, we ask whether the ban violates any of the exclusions created by the bill of rights (or other provisions, like no ex post facto laws).

For the FIRST QUESTION, my guess is that Congress tied the ban into its power to regulate interstate commerce. There's more theory involved than it's really feasible to cover here (we spent a while on this in my con law class) but the short and sloppy test is: if you can think of any rational reason at all for thinking that congress would want to ban assault weapons as part of their regulation of interstate commerce, then the AWB will pass this part of the test. This test is called the rational basis test. (remember this name - it's important.)

Three things to note about the test: First, the "burden of proof" is on the person contesting the law. That means if you don't like the law you have to show that there's no possible rational reason for Congress to pass the law in order to invalidate it. Second, we don't care under this test whether Congress actually acted on this rule - the test is only whether it's possible to think of a rule that Congress might have use. Finally, we're not concerned here about whether the law is a good idea or not. That's Congress's job to decide. The idea is that they're elected and a judge would rather let the people decide indirectly whether the law is a good or bad idea than second guess Congress themselves. [If you're worried that this test really doesn't block anything, I agree with you but that's how the Constitution works.]

So to apply the test really quickly, here's a reason Congress might have wanted the law: Congress thinks that passing the law will reduce the likelihood that weapons will be transported over state lines because they think that it's easier to transport weapons with a folding stock. They also think that weapons without barrel shrouds will weigh more (because they'll use an extended wooden stock) and will also thus be less likely to be transported across state lines.

DON'T BOTHER pointing out that this rational is weak. It doesn't matter for rational basis analysis.

THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT MADE BY VIKING PRINCE AND MANGO55. They're simply wrong about how the federal constitution works. The default is that so long as we're inside the scope of one of the powers given to the federal government, the law is legit so long as there's a conceivable, rational reason. The constitution doesn't require a "clear need" and the need doesn't need to be one that "protects the rights of other citizens." It's enough for the need to be merely conceivable and it's enough for the law to promote economic efficiency. There's no restriction of the power to legislate to cases where you're protecting the rights of other citizens.

B) ASSUMING THE FEDERAL GOV. DOES HAVE THE POWER:

OK. That was the FIRST PART. We asked whether Congress had the power to regulate the weapons. That answers the argument made by Viking Prince and Mango55. The default is that Congress only needs the weakest of reasons in order to justify making the law.

So now we're on the SECOND PART - we've decided that Congress has the power to make the law so now we're talking about whether one of the exclusions applies. In other words, before we were talking about the Constitution generally and now we're talking about the 2nd Amendment. (Also, if we're talking about a state law, this is where we start. The first part of the stuff we did only applies to the federal government).
So we have two questions to ask here:

1. Are assault weapons even covered by the bill of rights?
2. Assuming they are, does the 2nd Amendment make the AWB unconstitutional?

C) Does the 2nd Amendment Apply to Assault Weapons?

To give some idea what we're asking here, many of the rights in the bill of rights actually contain exclusions not found in the text. Thus, for example, the first amendment acts to protect the right to free speech but the protection created by it doesn't actually extend to child pornography. Thus, no law banning child pornography, no matter how arbitrary, will ever run afoul of the first amendment.

Likewise, before the recent Heller decision, it was fairly common to think that the second amendment didn't apply to individuals (that it only created a right in militias). If that were the case, it wouldn't be possible for the AWB to be unconstitutional on the basis of the fact that it takes guns away from individuals.

Now, the Supreme Court in Heller never really gave an extensive list of what sorts of weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Instead, they essentially said that not all guns are, that at least some hand guns are, and beyond that their guidance was somewhat cryptic. I'm going to quote from a California appeals court case which I think does a fairly good job covering the issue. The precedent obviously isn't binding, but the analysis is still better than anything we're going to do on our own:

Accordingly, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not . . . a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (Heller, supra, 171 L.Ed.2d at p. 678.) Rather, it is the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as self-defense. (Id. at p. 679.) It protects the right to possess a handgun in one’s home because handguns are a “class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society” for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

As the court’s discussion makes clear, the Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle. (Heller, supra, 554 U. S. ___ [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 579].) Likewise, it does not protect the right to possess assault weapons or .50 caliber BMG rifles. As we have already indicated, in enacting the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, the Legislature was specifically concerned with the unusual and dangerous nature of these weapons. An assault weapon “has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (a).) The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (b).) These are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war.

You can find all the relevant material on pages 30+ here. To paraphrase, the reasoning goes like this:

(1) The 2nd amendment was intended to protect the right to guns necessary for a militia as conceived of at the time of the founding.
(2) A militia was intended to be a collection of people using the guns they used in day-to-day life [i.e. "for ordinary lawful purposes"].
(3) So the 2nd amendment enshrines in the Constitution a right to those guns commonly used in day to day life.
(4) Assault rifles aren't commonly used in day to day life.
THEREFORE: Assault rifles aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment.

THIS IS THE FIRST REPLY TO Ariovistus Maximus & Captain Jin. The AWB is Constitutional because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply at all to assault weapons.

D) If the 2nd Amendment Does Apply, is the AWB narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest?

However, even if the second amendment did apply to assault rifles, that wouldn't end the story. There are times where a government action can be constitutional even though an amendment forbids it. However, I'm not going to go into this stuff unless someone asks because the constitution section is already long enough and I've already put down stuff that I don't really think you guys are coming back from.

Quickly, though, the test probably would be the strict scrutiny test (although the court hasn't decided on that yet). Essentially the way it works: Even if a government action is forbidden by an amendment (e.g. it's an abridgement of free speech) it's still legit if the action is narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. Keeping people from getting killed is clearly a compelling state interest, so as long as you had narrow tailoring you the law would be constitutional.

POLICY ARGUMENTS:

Since the policy and Constitutional arguments earlier were running together, I'd like to see how you guys respond now that the Constitutional issue is, I think, settled.

to rephrase: My argument is still that the AWB is a low benefit policy, but also one with extremely low costs (since no important freedom is impaired). A lot of your responses to that argument relied on the Constitutional premise that your right to a gun with a certain look is Constitutionally significant. Now that that premise is dead, how do you argue?

EDIT: Some of the AWB advantages:

ADVANTAGES OF BANNING BAYONETS:

Shooters are frequently tackled when they're reloading, and I imagine it would a lot harder to tackle a guy with a bayonet.

EXAMPLE ONE
EXAMPLE TWO
EXAMPLE THREE

ADVANTAGES OF BANNING PISTOLE GRIPS:

In a shooting situation it's often necessary to take a gun from the shooter's hands by force. The pistol grip gives the shooter an advantage in melee combat and makes the gun harder to take away.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Let's begin with making something quite clear.

I think that the Assault Weapons Ban is a product of ignorance toward firearms.

However, as one who opposes this legislation, I will tell you something:

I do not see any reason for the ordinary citizen to own fully-automatic weapons (machine guns), anti-tank guns, grenades or grenade launchers, high explosive, etc. It is perfectly reasonable that anyone wishing to obtain said weapons be required to register with the FBI, do tons of paperwork, and have a spotless record.

However, these weapons are already illegal. They have been since the '30s. So it's not as if there aren't laws that keep us from stocking up on military weapons and making out like Al Capone.

OK, so we know that fully-automatic weapons are already illegal. This factor already means that any of the firearms targeted by the assault weapons ban are hardly related to their military counterparts.

Here is a video that outlines it well.



So we can see that the vast majority of the AWB is cosmetic.

For example, I could have two guns: a .22 and a 7.62x39 Russian rifle.

The .22 is virtually harmless; the 7.62x39 round is the round used by the AK-47. (By the way, have you noticed that our media always calls military rifles "AK-47s" as if all guns were AK-47s? How ignorant can they be?)

OK, so if I take my .22 and give it a folding stock, a pistol grip, and a 30-round magazine, and a flash suppressor (although the .22 has hardly any flash anyway), my .22 would be illegal under the AWB.

However, Saiga makes a great hunting rifle based on the AK-47 action and the 7.62x39 round. It is perfectly legal under the AWB. In fact, a lot of manufacturers during the first assault weapons ban (expired in '04) simply built their rifles with thumbhole stocks. They also eliminated flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

Thus, the change was completely cosmetic. The video shows you; the AWB is a strawman.

Let's look at a few points about the AWB.

The AWB will outlaw a gun if it has a bayonet lug. Now let's think about this. If I had a loaded gun, would I need a bayonet on the end to commit murder? Um, no. Actually, the bayonet is hardly practical for military use any more. Does anybody have a record of a recent murder commited with a bayonet? Not a knife; a knife attached to the end of a firearm.

The AWB is based on the notion that assault weapons are used in a large number of crimes. They'd like you to think that AK47s and AR15s are widely used in crime. Sorry; not the case. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns. Rifles are too big, too bulky, too powerful.

AWB supporters also think that .50 caliber firearms are the criminal's choice. They like to target .50 BMG rifles as "sniper weapons."



OK, now first of all, has anyone come across a case where anyone used this thing in a gun crime? Let me fill in a few details for you. That thing in the picture is the Barrett M82 .50 BMG; it is a monster. It is about as tall as you are; it weighs way more than any other rifle on the market. And the clincher? A price tag of $8500, give or take $500 or so.

Now suppose for a moment that you are a criminal with an IQ higher than a newt. Unless you are assassinating a high government official for $$$, your payback will certainly not exceed the expendature just to get this thing. And if you WERE a professional assassin, you would have considerable ties to the black market.

Next, you are gonna have to wear some awfully baggy clothing to cover that baby up. Or conceal it in a refrigerator and disguise yourself as a salesman.

OK, I don't think we need to use our imaginations too much to figure out that this rifle poses little threat.

So what about handguns? Well, this law affects only a very few handguns. Well, except that it limits handguns to 8 rounds of ammo!

YAY! WE'RE SAVED! THE GANGSTER CAN ONLY SHOOT 8 OF US!!!

OK, (a: does it make a difference to carry 4 less rounds; (b: how many intelligent people skip the idea of buying TWO magazines... or... maybe... THREEEEEEE...

Well, those are just a few points; we'll see what the response is.

But they LOOK scary and thats whats important to people without a clue beyond the movies.

Precisely; I often make the point that an AW is just an ordinary rifle in a SWEET body!

Essentially, subscribing to the AWB implies a lack of understanding regarding firearms.

Seriously, if everybody got good gun education, soooo many of this phony legislation would go out the window! But since various gov't leaders seem to have agendas, they won't give people anything but their own special brand of education.


Also, here is another point to consider. Suppose, just SUPPOSE for a moment that I decided that I wanted to kill someone, and that I decided that the best way was to snipe the guy from 2 blocks away because I was too stupid to understand the use of knives...

Now, y'all should think of something: what kind of rifles do military snipers use? Or police snipers. Some use AWB-prohibited weapons, but MANY of them use rifles like this:



PLEASE note the complete absense of a conspicuous pistol grip, flash suppressor, barrel shroud, bayonet lug, telescoping or folding stock, etc.

And if your REAL sharp you've noticed that this rifle would be legal even if it had those things...

It's not semi-auto.

So this leads me to suppose... if it's good enough for the police, I think that it should be good for anybody else!

Here are some other simple points which I wrote up for an emotions-based editor:

Dear Editor:

Concerning your article on Obama’s gun control plans, “Obama’s too Cool on Gun Restrictions,” there is another side to anti-gun policy.

I have heard anti-gun activists refer to the huge gun crime rate in California. What they don’t mention is that California already has the toughest gun laws in the nation. Obviously extra restrictions aren’t helping California law enforcement.

Also consider the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech. What affect would the Assault Weapons Ban have had on those murders? The only thing it would have done is to limit the number of bullets in the shooter’s handguns, nothing more. I don’t mean to treat it lightly, but that is as far as Obama’s gun laws take us.

In reality, the only way Obama’s plan could stop gun violence is to remove every single gun from the planet, and that is simply impossible. Why do we think that the government will be able to stop the flow of guns, when they can’t stop the flow of illegal drugs? All that gun restrictions will do is take guns away from law-abiding citizens, giving criminals the upper hand.

The real problem is in people, not the tools they use to manifest the problem. Perhaps the government should think about regulating the violence that is presented all around us. We are desensitized to human life by violent games and twisted movies on a regular basis. How should we be surprised then, when people simply manifest the violence they watch so often?

So maybe we should concentrate on building up a responsible next generation, instead of merely trying to suppress the symptom. If a person isn’t planning an assault, then we don’t have to worry whether or not he has guns, will we?

Thanks for your time, and may God bless America!

[Rich86]

I do not see any reason for the ordinary citizen to own fully-automatic weapons (machine guns), anti-tank guns, grenades or grenade launchers, high explosive, etc. It is perfectly reasonable that anyone wishing to obtain said weapons be required to register with the FBI, do tons of paperwork, and have a spotless record.

What? No there is no reason for anyone outside of government to own these weapons - regardless of 'tons of paperwork' and 'spotless record' - why the hell would anyone need a LAW or C4 or GPMG's??????? Unless you are planning the invasion of a small country you don't need these things.

have you noticed that our media always calls military rifles "AK-47s" as if all guns were AK-47s? How ignorant can they be?

No I have not noticed that. I have noticed the media tends to report the use of AK-47's when reporting on combat with some middle eastern terrorist cell - largely because these groups do tend to be armed with AK-47's due to the fact they are cheap and easy to obtain.

the bayonet is hardly practical for military use any more.

Actually it's quite practical if you end up close to someone with a) no ammo left b) a fault with your weapon.

The AWB is based on the notion that assault weapons are used in a large number of crimes. They'd like you to think that AK47s and AR15s are widely used in crime. Sorry; not the case.

But this is like saying Well tanks are not often used in crimes so let's allow people to own them - we should not allow people to own powerful firearms as a) they are more dangerous than smaller firearms (generally speaking) b) there is no actual need to own them anyway - you don't need an SA-80 to go hunting.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.

Hence they should be banning handguns.




I think it sounds like what is and is not covered by the ban should be looked at again - however personally I think people shouldn't really be allowed to own firearms - there's no real need.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

What? No there is no reason for anyone outside of government to own these weapons - regardless of 'tons of paperwork' and 'spotless record' - why the hell would anyone need a LAW or C4 or GPMG's??????? Unless you are planning the invasion of a small country you don't need these things.

Yes; I was just making allowance for collectors who get things like MG 42s etc.

No I have not noticed that. I have noticed the media tends to report the use of AK-47's when reporting on combat with some middle eastern terrorist cell - largely because these groups do tend to be armed with AK-47's due to the fact they are cheap and easy to obtain.

They are very misinformed. They portray AWB-targeted weapons as though they are the same as the weapons used by terrorists and militaries. Not even close.

Actually it's quite practical if you end up close to someone with a) no ammo left b) a fault with your weapon.

And when has a criminal used one? Even if you could find one, it would be so isolated and obscure.

But this is like saying Well tanks are not often used in crimes so let's allow people to own them - we should not allow people to own powerful firearms as a) they are more dangerous than smaller firearms (generally speaking) b) there is no actual need to own them anyway - you don't need an SA-80 to go hunting.

It's not like that at all. I agree that military equipment should stay with the military. AWB-targeted are NOT military firearms.

Hence they should be banning handguns.

In an ideal universe, guns would not exist. However, in reality there are lots of them.

I will be impressed with the government's ability to keep illegal guns from criminals the very same instant they prove their ability to keep illegal drugs from dealers and users.

Thus, it makes more sense to allow the law-abiding public to own firearms.

Put yourself in the criminal's shoes. If you wanted to break into a house, and you knew that 75% of the people in one neighborhood had guns in the home, and the other neighborhood owned no guns, which would you choose?

I think it sounds like what is and is not covered by the ban should be looked at again - however personally I think people shouldn't really be allowed to own firearms - there's no real need.

Excuse me? No real need? 20000 people per annum who would be dead now are no real need?

Oh please. There's no real need for football either. Do you know how many AVOIDABLE injuries occur in football. And yet football does nothing for the average fan who sits on the couch and watches a game.

Should we ban football because it's unnecessary?

Here's another point. I'm willing to be reasonable on this.

A given gun ban might make sense in a large metropolis (although I've not seen one that was particularly effective).

However, the AWB is federal. A law made for an eastern metropolis is hardly fitting for a midwestern town.

If gun bans MUST be enacted, they should not be federal; it should be up to each state.

Just because you live in a NY high-rise (for example), that is hardly a reason to suppose that someone in a Missouri country house has the same priorities you do.

[Gelgoog]

well considering that this is one of the idiots who pushed the AW ban, I think we can understand why it does not make sense.

[MaximiIian]

"No, I do not know what a barrel shroud is."
"Oh? Cuz it's in your legislation...<_<"

Also, that lady looks like Tommy Lee Jones in a wig.

[Rich86]

You'd be kicking and screaming this kind of nonsense was applied to the automotive industry.

Yeah....except cars are not designed to kill things.

What right do you have to say that I don't need any kind of rifle I want?

What right do you have to arm yourself to the teeth? Why don't you tell us WHY you need a small arsenal of weaponary?

Your arguments are all based on how the ban "won't hurt anybody."

No - the ban might in fact help people.

How about TV? I can think of a lot of junk on TV that could be banned.

Except TV isn't meant to kill things.

[the_mango55]

No - the ban might in fact help people.

How so?

If someone plans on shooting me with a gun, I'm not going to be concerned whether or not he has a bayonet mount or barrel shroud.

[Captain Jin]

What right do you have to arm yourself to the teeth? Why don't you tell us WHY you need a small arsenal of weaponary?

Funny you should ask. In the US we have what is called the Constitution, within that is this thing called The Bill of Rights. Oddly enough, the second amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms from the infringement of the Federal Government. Weird, huh? Sounds like he has the right to arm himself.

[Rich86]

Funny you should ask. In the US we have what is called the Constitution, within that is this thing called The Bill of Rights. Oddly enough, the second ammedment says I have the right to keep and bear arms from the infringement of the Federal Government. Weird, huh? Sounds like he has the right to arm himself.

So because it was written down let's not think about it - he's got the rights. Let's go and arm ourselves to the teeth. Perhaps plant some claymore mines in the driveway? A tank in the garage? I could keep an assault rifle under the bed - some handguns dotted around the house...maybe some trip flares on the law....and for good measure I'm going to keep a GPMG in the loft.

That would be really sensible and the right thing to do because it was written down a long time ago.

Yes; I was just making allowance for collectors who get things like MG 42s etc.

Collectors is different - if the thing cannot physically operate that's fine.

And when has a criminal used one? Even if you could find one, it would be so isolated and obscure.

Fair enough.

It's not like that at all. I agree that military equipment should stay with the military. AWB-targeted are NOT military firearms.

Military gear most certainly should stay with the military. Personally I think any type of gun that can be banned should be banned - civillians have no real need to own them.

In an ideal universe, guns would not exist. However, in reality there are lots of them.

Shouldn't we be taking steps to remove them from the streets then? Rather than just shrugging our shoulders and giving up?

it makes more sense to allow the law-abiding public to own firearms

Why? How often do people actually have to use these things in self-defence? Or are actually able to use them to defend themselves?

Put yourself in the criminal's shoes. If you wanted to break into a house, and you knew that 75% of the people in one neighborhood had guns in the home, and the other neighborhood owned no guns, which would you choose?

That's just silly as you'd have no way of knowing that.

Excuse me? No real need? 20000 people per annum who would be dead now are no real need?

There's no real need for you to be owning firearms no - how many people are shot every year in your country by firearms?

There's no real need for football either.

Football is not meant to kill anyone.

Do you know how many AVOIDABLE injuries occur in football.

Yes - most are really quite minor. Again, football is not meant to kill anyone - guns are.

Should we ban football because it's unnecessary?

Football is not meant to kill anyone.

A given gun ban might make sense in a large metropolis (although I've not seen one that was particularly effective).

However, the AWB is federal. A law made for an eastern metropolis is hardly fitting for a midwestern town.

If you don't ban it everywhere you'll only have people moaning that they lost their guns, and other people did not lose theirs.

[Captain Jin]

So because it was written down let's not think about it - he's got the rights. Let's go and arm ourselves to the teeth. Perhaps plant some claymore mines in the driveway? A tank in the garage? I could keep an assault rifle under the bed - some handguns dotted around the house...maybe some trip flares on the law....and for good measure I'm going to keep a GPMG in the loft.

That would be really sensible and the right thing to do because it was written down a long time ago.

Ohhh, yeah, so screw women's rights, the right for the freedom speech, and freedom of press. Those were all just written down a long time ago, so what's the point?

Here's why you don't just throw it out the window. It's part of the BILL OF RIGHTS. You don't get to just pick and choose the ones that are convenient for you and throw the other ones out the window, otherwise a racist good easily make the argument that black people should be slaves or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Your reply is a typical overly emotional reply. You mention claymores and tanks, how silly is that? I wasn't aware that either of those are legal to own and use in the US. What's also weird is neither of those are ASSAULT WEAPONS. Which is oddly what we are talking about. The rest of it is fine, if you want handguns in your house, or an assault rifle that isn't fully automatic under your bed then by all means, go for it. That's your right as an American (if you are one). If I don't think it makes sense that you do that, who the CARES!? It's your house not mine!!!!!!!!!!

Football may not be designed to kill people, but there are so many riots and other lunacy as the result of a ridiculous game that people are injured and killed worldwide over a game. Either way, don't knock his football comment when you list tanks and claymores in your reply to me, cause that's a bit flawed.

If you don't ban it everywhere you'll only have people moaning that they lost their guns, and other people did not lose theirs.

Riiiight. But you conveniently ignored the fact that the inner city urban centers where gun violence is the highest has the strictest gun control policies, and has for decades, yet that doesn't seem to change the levels of violence. How weird is that? Then the solution must be to make a nation wide Federal ban so that people that don't live where gun violence is high are subject to the same strict laws. That's what people that aren't blind call STUPID.

[Rich86]

Ohhh, yeah, so screw women's rights, the right for the freedom speech, and freedom of press. Those were all just written down a long time ago, so what's the point?

I wasn't saying that (surely you understood that???). I was saying you can't simply say oh it's written down as justification. You need to go beyond that and explain why a right to do X is neccesary and valid - not just say because it is written...

Your reply is a typical overly emotional reply.

Not really - emotion didn't come into it.

Football may not be designed to kill people, but there are so many riots and other lunacy as the result of a ridiculous game that people are injured and killed worldwide over a game.

Any injuries deaths are not a direct result of football are they? If we count on the one hand how many have died due to a device designed to kill and how many have died due to a sport that is played for fun - which is going to come off best?

you conveniently ignored the fact that the inner city urban centers where gun violence is the highest has the strictest gun control policies, and has for decades, yet that doesn't seem to change the levels of violence.

Not being an American myself I am not familiar with American crime statistics. I would ask however when you say 'violence' do you mean just that; 'violence' - or do you mean violence with firearms involved?

In that case, cars should be regulated even MORE HEAVILY (according to your rules) because they kill MORE people than criminals with guns do, DESPITE the fact that they're not designed for it!!!

They kill more people because everyone owns one - accidents happen - and anyway yes, safety should be key with motor vehicles.

No, TV doesn't kill things. It just puts ideas of how to kill things in people's heads.

I suppose we should ban books too? They can put similar ideas in people's head? I guess we could ban conversation in case someone suggests violence?

Do you think the Virginia Tech shooter got the idea in church? Please.

lol what?

I recall reading of a case where a teenager walked into a police station and murdered a few cops. Why? He had done it in Grand Theft Auto. He was just acting out his game.

Oh please. Go and start a thread about video games causing violence - please do.

I have every right to do so. It is recognized by my constitution.

Right again - it's written down on a piece of paper and that's good enough for me!. Can you explain beyond 'cause it's written down why you feel you have that right?


You talk about hunting - fine if hunting is legal I don't see a big problem with someone using a weapon for hunting.

I need a .22 to teach my kids how to handle guns safely. This way, when they grow up, they will not kill people in firearms accidents.

And they'd be even less likely to kill anyone if they didn't own weapons.

What right do YOU have to suggest that I DON'T need any of it?

Well unlike you I've gone beyond cause it was written down........

Do I have any right to say that your knife collection is wrong?

I don't own any weapons designed to kill things.

Or car collectors?

I don't own a car.

Or any other collection?

Yes you do - you have the right to criticise any collection of anything I have. And when I defend my collections I'll go beyond oh well it's written down that I can have this....

Maybe I want to collect guns. Why should you butt into my business?

So nobody is allowed to question you? To criticise your lifestyle choices?

Show me where a gun ban has helped some people

That's difficult though as it would require me to be able to see how events would have panned out had a gun ban not in fact been imposed - that's actually impossible to do.

You make the case that "assault weapons" are dangerous because they are so different in function from any other rifle.

Where?

AWB proponents want to ban all guns. This is absurd for a variety of reasons, including the reality that bad guys by definition will not observe the ban.

Where I live we can't own guns. Not that many people get shot at all.

We shouldn't take steps to remove guns from streets; we should take steps to remove criminals from streets.

Right well when you find a way to just 'eliminate crime' let me know - until then why not do something a bit easier to do than just do away with crime, and try and remove firearms and blades etc?

THIS IS BEING DONE

THIS HAS BEEN 'BEING DONE' FOR A VERY LONG TIME. WE STILL HAVE CRIME.

if you take guns away from a bad person, he will become good. WRONG!

No - he will just find it harder to kill people?

He will be bad with something else.

Yes and most of those things are far less effective at killing people.

If you were a criminal, and you read about a number of crimes in a given community were stopped by firearms, would you set up shop in said community???

Considering most crimes are oppurtunist crimes if I'm not mistaken - I doubt your hypothetical criminal would sit down with the paper and a mug of coffee and do some research on crime statistics.

I love AWB arguments sometimes. Either they say.....

Yeah wonderful. I'm not an 'AWB' - so please don't strawman.

Duh. But did overall crime fall? NO; it GOES UP

But do less people die?

you have handicapped the citizens from protecting themselves

Personally I'd not want the average citizen making the call on wether or not it was ok to shoot another human being; potentially killing them.

Your argument was that guns are bad because they hurt people. Football hurts people.

That's like saying well we had best not try and get rid of heroin - because whilst it destroys lives so does eating too much so unless we're prepared to ban eating too much - we should keep heroin.

The intention or purpose of something has no bearing in this case. We are looking at results.

And the results show how silly it is to compare injuries and deaths from firearms with injuries and deaths from..............football.

[MaximiIian]

What right do you have to arm yourself to the teeth?

There's this little thing called the Right to Bear Arms. Maybe you've heard of it?

Why don't you tell us WHY you need a small arsenal of weaponry?

Why not?

Military gear most certainly should stay with the military.

No . The thing is, the AWB isn't banning military gear. It's banning firearms marketed for civilians because of how the thing looks.

How often do people actually have to use these things in self-defence?

Quite often, actually. If you lived here, you'd know that.