federal assault weapons ban

The basic problem with "social issues" is that our system is positively set up not to be able to deal with them intelligently. I'd like to see outright plebescite votes on things like abortion, affirmative action, 55mph speed limits, school bussing, releasing canadian wolves in Idaho and Wyoming, etc. etc. What actually happens is that our elected reps want no part of such issues figuring they'd offend 45% of their constituency whichever way they voted on such an issue, and prefer to shunt such issues off to judges who act like satraps. In too many instances, the people have a ligitimate right to feel that they have no voice in issues which affect their lives in significant ways.

The only exception I'd make to the general rule of preferring plebiscite votes for such issues is the 2'nd ammendment, which I see as an absolute right guaranteed by our constitution. Likewise, I'd assume that most liberals view abortion rights as nearly absolute. The basic thought experiment (Einstein's term) here is, what if there were a possibility of a fair trade on those two issues? I'm simply curious as to what liberals' reactions to that would be. Ideally, the deal would be for me to sell the plan to conservatives and somebody to sell it to liberals, although it's not clear to me that either salesmanship effort would be possible.

So having guns is more important to you than changing Roe v. Wade?

Kind of telling that.

I am not advocating the total ban of guns for private citizens period. Merely assault weapons. I think that is reasonable and so do two out of three Americans. (source on previous post)

On the other hand if a vote for issues were ever to happen and the one about abortion came up, I would vote for to outlaw it. (surprised?)

I would be willing to bet that ninety nine out of one hundred couldn't tell you what an assault weapon really is. Under the definition they have now, it could be anything from a turkey baster to a bazooka.

cjhsa
Anything bigger than a bread box, a very small one, and shoot live ammo is off the table.

So having guns is more important to you than changing Roe v. Wade?

Kind of telling that. <--- Revel

Yeah. Like I said in another thread; when guns become more important to you than almost anything else, it's a sign of a problem.

Cycloptichorn

Since cjhsa knows more than the rest of us about the various types of guns, as he reminds us over and over, I guess we should leave gun policy to him. At least that's what I think he's saying.

Which, come to think of it, is the NRA line, isn't it?

You know, I would like to hear from all those in favor of renewing this "assault weapons" ban.

I wonder, could you describe for me, the type of guns this ban affects, and tell me how these guns are any more deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle?

Last time I checked, thumbhole stocks, flash suppressors, and pistol grips don't make a bullet go any faster. They're ergonomic and cosmetic features. And when was the last time you heard of a drive-by bayoneting? And why in Zod's name would one of these features on a gun be okay, but two would be unacceptable?

Because that's what this ban is about. Have you read the thing? Let me illustrate:

Gun #1. This is an AR-15(BANNED):



Gun #2. This is a Ruger Mini-14. (NOT BANNED):


The first is an "assault weapon" according to the law. The second is perfectly legal.

Please explain any and all practical differences between these two fine rifles, especially any differences that would necessitate banning one and not the other.

Before you do, though, i'm going to save you a lot of trouble by pointing out that there AREN'T any useful differences. They fire the same round, likely with very similar mechanisms, at the rate of one bullet per trigger pull. For all intents and purposes, they might as well be the exact same gun.
Actually, now that I mention it, you can legally modify that second one to look scary like the first, without changing the way the gun functions in any way:

Holy crap, I think I just wet myself! That's a scary gun! Now THAT one needs to be banned!

Seriously, people. The 1994 "assault weapons" ban makes guns illegal because they look scary. I **** you not. Read the text of the law, I dare you.

What it also does is it sets a precedent for banning guns based on appearance and nonmechanical features. That's about the worst reason I've ever heard of to ban anything in particular; it's the equivalent of banning a particular brand of rubber penis because it's both ribbed for her pleasure AND rechargeable, while lesser penises with only one of these features go unbanned.

I, of course, used the rubber penis analogy because some of you are obviously so scared of pistol grips and bayonet attachments, that you could not possibly have a real penis of your own.


wait...wait...here it comes....

Booyah.

That's an excellent post, Nate. Welcome to A2K.

Thank you, kind sir. Your avatar is excellent as well.

Inserting certain unrelated language into the assault weapons debate does not clarify your point.

I don't see the need for regular citizens to own military style weapons for sports and hunting and self defense. From what I have been reading the differences in the guns is in the grip and it's ability to add attachable "magazines" and it makes a lot of difference in how many bullets can come out in a round.

The following is an explanation of the bill and a description of the banned weapons.

http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/HR_2038.asp

nice try

actually, plain ol legal rifles can have detachable magazines, as long as they don't also have 2 items from the list of scary-looking features.


What? A bullet IS a round.


In any case, the onus is on the pro-ban people to make some sort of case as to why these guns should be banned, which no one has done. "I don't see the need" is rather irrelevant, and the "style" of the weapon is also irrelevant.

What astounds me is that so many people are pushing for this ban of a type of weapon that are used in about one fifth of one percent of violent crimes. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ban had any effect on crime or gun crime specifically, during its ten years. All this is, is a precedent for more gun bans based on similarly pointless criteria.

I am not really up on gun talk so excuse me.

Anyway, the banned weapons can be made to have an excess of ten rounds while the others can't.

In any event the whole issue could be honestly decided and discussed if Frist would allow it to be put for a vote. But he can't because Bush had previously said he would support a continuation on the assault weapons ban and that leaves the Bush administration between being a flip flopper or going against NRA.

More than ten rounds? GOD SAVE US ALL.

I'm sure glad that criminals are limited to ten shots, since it takes thirteen to kill me, and someone looking to commit a crime with a gun would NEVER carry more than one mag with him.


I feel so safe.

There are statics that show that the assault ban has been pretty sucessful which is why almost all police officers are in favor of it continuing.

As an example of the complete lack of morals of the Bush administration.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref14a.html

It's now my bedtime, nighty night sleep with your gun holding you tight.

link to any evidence supporting that claim, please?



Also, over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon."

What's that about police support again? Could you not make wild unsupported claims, so as to save me the trouble of typing refutations?


So, what kind of apples do you like, if not these?

You've really got to find some better sources revel. The link you listed on teh previuous page mentions "Prohibits possession of assault weapons by juveniles. Under current law, juveniles under the age of 18 are not prohibited from buying or possessing assault rifles and shotguns, although it is illegal for juveniles to acquire or possess assault pistols. The bill would establish a uniform ban on assault weapon possession by juveniles. " which is patently false. NO juvenile (anyone under age 18) can purchase ANY firearm themselves. That has nothing to do with the Assult Weapons law - it's already covered in other laws that cover ALL firearms.

Your 2nd link here is also useless. It isn't proof of anything. It's an OPINION piece in an editorial page. It isn't a source of any facts other than the author's personal opinions.

While I'm here, I might as well add that even the proponents of renewing the ban have admitted that it so far hasn't worked as intended.


"If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another" in "reducing death and injury." Who said that? Tom Diaz, of the pro-gun-control Violence Policy Center.

How can you defend this, if the people pushing gun control are admitting it's pointless?

I am not really up on gun control information and I confess my interest is not that great so I just googled some information that kind of went along with my way of thinking in general about guns other than just plain ole riffles and little guns for safety and hunting (which I personally don't like but don't hold anything against those that do hunt)which is all I think anyone needs.

So I concede that you all have won this subject. I know when I am out of my depth and out of my true interest.

If more democrats get in congress then the vote will end up on the presidents desk whoever he is. If it is bush he will have to sign it or go back on his word and be a flip flopper. If it is john kerry he will sign it with the admendments that fills in the things that make the present bill not quite good enough. If we don't get enough democrats in congress, the bill will never reach the floor and the bill will not pass with the new admendments and Americans will then be able to go buy asssault weapons at guns shows.

Don't have a lot of time this morning. So happy hunting.

Cigarettes kill far more people than assault weapons do. I don't think people should smoke. Cigarettes should be banned...