@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:BTW, why Heller put to bed any support for the DC gun ban, it did leave open, in my view very clearly, the right of the govt. to ban assault weapons.
I think the O administration is going to take a shot at accomplishing this.
You are wrong on both counts.
The Heller decision applied strict scrutiny to gun laws.
Before the government can possibly ban assault weapons, it will have to come up with a compelling need to ban pistol grips.
Assault weapons bans are now decisively unconstitutional.
And while Obama certainly wishes he could violate our rights, he understands the reality that Congress is not about to let him do so, and he isn't going to try to start a battle he knows he will lose.
@OmSigDAVID,
David, why don't you carry a concealed stone instead of a gun.
Isn't it true that New York, where I think you live, has draconian penalties for carrying a concealed gun? I am thinking of the likelihood that the pro football player who shot himself is most likely going to have to serve some serious time in jail.
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:Hi dlowan -- sorry I didn't get around to working on the scatter graph until now. What I did was to take your data from this post and find the countries that have data for both murders with firearms and guns per capita. (I'm assuming it's guns per 1000 people -- 90 guns per capita is a bit much even for the US.) Then I plotted the data against each other. Here is the result:
Three points of caution about interpreting this graph:
- Your list contained only 13 countries that have data for both gun murders and gun ownership. For comparison, a popular rule of thumb in statistical analysis holds that serious statistics begins with 20 data points. So we don't have enough data for serious statistics.
- Correlation does not imply causation. In particular, just because higher rates of gun ownership correlate with lower or higher murder rates, that doesn't mean they are causing lower or higher murder rates.
- Because of these limitations, your data can provide nothing more than a crude smell test.
That said, the smell test is more consistent with the statements of the pro-gun posters than with the position of the pro-gun-control posters. For what your data is worth, high gun murder rates correlate with low rates of gun ownership, not with hih rates of gun ownership.
You compared gun ownership with gun related deaths?
There is a major logical flaw with that. The presence of guns does increase "gun related" deaths, as murders that would have otherwise been committed without guns, got committed with guns once they became available.
To get a reasonable picture, you need to see how gun availability affects the *total* murder rate. That will show if more guns result in more people being killed.
There is some good data on that here, if you are interested:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:nobody, who isn't a member of the military needs an M-16 or other assault rifle in their home
get that through your head you ******* gun loving douchebag
Militiamen need an M-16 in their home (and not one of those semi-auto-only versions either).
But more to the point, Americans, being free people, don't have to "need" an assault weapon in their homes. We have the constitutional right to have them regardless of whether we need them.
This "need" nonsense is for people who don't live in free countries.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:I am so delighted that the majority of the Supreme Court will soon be liberal.
And what gives you the notion that this might come to pass?
@oralloy,
Interesting website oralloy.
I wonder why the years range from 1990 to 2007 in cherry picking the statistics for each country. They cite a report that clearly lists all murders in those countries from 1998 to 2000. Yet they use many years prior to 1998.
Another interesting thing about their stats is the population of the England and Wales from 1992 - 1997 didn't change a bit between the 2 lists.
Aren't statistics grand when you get to select them to support your position?
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:Heller made it clear that governments can regulate gun ownership. Thus, assault weapons can, and should, be banned for the general public.
Nope. Heller said the government can regulate only when there is a compelling reason for the regulation (when they applied strict scrutiny).
Any compelling reason for banning pistol grips?
Then assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.
And as soon as we secure Fourteenth Amendment incorporation (which should be very soon - expect the appeals court ruling to come out this year, then it's on to the Supremes), you can look for all those state and local assault weapons bans in California, NYC, Boston, etc to be tossed out.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".[5]
--wikepedia.com
Nope. Those guns have zero to do with any assault weapons ban.
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:i will never understand why anyone needs to own anything more than a long rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes
You are thinking like a serf instead of like an American.
Americans, being free people, don't have to "need" a gun in order to buy it.
djjd62 wrote:i could possibly understand handguns as sport/target shooting, but really see no need for private citizens to own them
You somehow missed self defense, which is a very important civilian use for handguns (long guns too for that matter).
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty.
the key word being lawful, they could make possession of some guns unlawful, this would still leave guns available for a militia
Any law that would prevent militiamen from having modern military weapons would be unconstitutional.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:The question is whether the government can, and should, ban military-style assault weapons. I think that Heller would permit this. I am sure that there will be cases on this question in the near future.
Your biggest error is your lack of understanding about what an assault weapon really is.
If you got past that error you'd probably see that Heller says that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.
@oralloy,
Most of the SC is geriatric, indicating that Obama will be nominating replacements. Thus, we will soon have a liberal majority on the court.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Most of the SC is geriatric, indicating that Obama will be nominating replacements. Thus, we will soon have a liberal majority on the court.
Unfortunately, Scalia is the only one who is genuinely in danger of this. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas aren't going anywhere based on age.
Cycloptichorn
General Holder says that Heller would not preclude a permanent ban on assault weapons. But hell, the experts on A2K know a lot more than he does.
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Obama seeks 'assault weapons' ban
AG: 'I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 26, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The Obama administration has announced a sweeping plan to help curb Mexican violence across the border " ban "assault weapons" in the United States.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a news conference at the Justice Department yesterday.
While he said the ban would be a good move for the U.S., he also claims it will reduce the number of guns reaching Mexico's brutal drug cartels.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum," Holder said.
Mexican officials say the desire for sophisticated guns is encouraging drug cartels to clash over access routes into the U.S.
"International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities," Holder said. "As the world grows smaller and international criminals step up their efforts to operate inside our borders, the Department of Justice will confront them head on to keep our communities safe."
Holder didn't reveal when the Obama administration will seek to reimplement the ban. In 1994, former President Clinton outlawed 19 types of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition clips when he signed the Assault Weapons Ban into law.
Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, told ABC News, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."
The NRA estimates that semi-automatic weapons account for approximately 15 percent of 250 million firearms owned in the U.S.
During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee the Obama administration may consider other methods of controlling guns, according to the report.
"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court case Washington, D.C. v. Heller.
Holder, a former Clinton administration official, endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.
"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:You are correct about Clinton losing congress. The NRA is a political force. However, the ban was hardly unconstitutional.
Yes it was.
I expect the government to pay reparations before I'll ever support any gun control (even gun control that is both Constitutional and would serve a legitimate goal).
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:It should be noted that Clinton signed into law the ban on assault-type weapons in 1994, and the craven Rep congress allowed it to expire in 2004.
Nothing craven about supporting our civil rights.
Advocate wrote:It is telling that the law was not challenged during that ten years. The reason there was no successful challenge is that opponents of the law knew they had no case based on the constitution.
No, it is because at the time the courts were not bothering to uphold the Constitution.
That has changed now.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:oralloy wrote:...Congressional Democrats support the Constitution...
Not all of them support the Constitution and they will support PrezBO's efforts.
Enough of them do. Obama has zero chance of getting an assault weapons ban through Congress.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:Rights without responsibilities only promotes lawlessness .
I expect that most people who support gun rights are willing to accept the responsibilities that come with owning a gun.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:oralloy wrote:H2O MAN wrote:maporsche wrote:She may be slow, however I suspect that she's trying to find someone who supports 2ndA rights who thinks murder is just peachy.
She's simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest. I have a hard time imaging someone who can willfully do what she's doing here.
+1
She is simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest.
I don't think this is the case. I think she has just never been free, so she doesn't really understand what freedom is.
Remember, Americans are the only free people in the world. Non-Americans just don't have our perspective.
Then, can't we just take Princess Pelosi to some other country and set her free?
Pelosi is the one telling Obama he can't ban assault weapons.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html
