# Gun Control **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2002, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485 "2002-03-22T03:48:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/81 "2002-03-27T22:32:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Toaster52 \* > \*\* First of all, I want to reiterate that my definition of “militia” would be each and every individual of this country, as individuals; NOT an organized compilation of said individuals._\* Since the Second Amendment says “well regulated” militia, I don’t see where you get the idea that individuals are militias. I don’t have a cite (perhaps you can supply one) but I’ve heard that the Swiss require military service of every male after the age of 18, that they receive periodic refresher training until the age of 45, _and that they keep their military weapons in their homes._ If they are not formed into regiments, etc., at least they are regulated in the sense that they are trained. By contrast, the majority of Americans have had no military service or training at all, and the ones who have are allowed to get stale, as it were, unless they are in the reserves. Our population (males…women please feel free to address this one in another thread) is hardly well regulated or disciplined. The framers of the Constitution labored over the wording of every article and amendmrent with the intent to be as thorough and clear as possible. If the words “well regulated” have no meaning, why are they there? \*\* > [@](#): > > So…is this “militia” doing anything to prevent the government from suppressing their rights? What evidence is there that this militia is active in combatting government suppression? Funny, I thought that’s what voting was all about (and please…it’s a whole 'nother thread about how we are destroying ourselves by voting stupidly or not at all). \*\* That _is_ what Congress is for. But individual “militiamen” standing in thier doorways with whatever kind of weapons are not the way to influence or protect us from government. Voting is. And you’re right about voting. Less than half of people eligible to vote in this country bother to do so. With that in mind, when anybody bitches about a law, or the condition of the country, I ask if they voted. If the answer is no, I just ignore anything they have to say. Voting’s not just a right, it’s a duty. By the way, did you vote? 😉 > [@](#): > > **As to gun CONTROL? There are many good arguments on both sides…** Glad you recognize that. \*\* > [@](#): > > So where on the Slippery Slope do we draw lines? 22-caliber pistols? AK-47’s? Bazookas? M-1 Abrams tanks? \*\* I hate to tell you this (and I get the humor in the way you presented it), but the government already _has_ the bazookas and the M-1 tanks. Do you really think that if “they” had the will to take over that you could stop them with AKs, Uzis .22s or even hand grenades? You couldn’t do much more than harrass them. ---
**Author:** ![hudley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@hudley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hudley)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/82 "2002-03-27T22:44:23Z")
"Since the Second Amendment says “well regulated” militia, I don’t see where you get the idea that individuals are militias. " So are you saying that all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual ones, but this is a State right? The militia was considered to be the body of men capable of fighting if need be. Remember that in those times there was a threat not just from national invasion but also Indians. The militia could be construed as you and your neighbor defending your village against a raid. I don’t have a cite for this, but I have read several times from people interpreting 18th century speech into our way of speaking, and “well regulated” did not mean government oversight, it meant “well functioning”. Jeffferson and company are well documented as saying in effect that the Govt fearing the people was a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/83 "2002-03-27T22:55:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Since the Second Amendment says “well regulated” militia, I don’t see where you get the idea that individuals are militias. I don’t have a cite (perhaps you can supply one) but I’ve heard that the Swiss require military service of every male after the age of 18, that they receive periodic refresher training until the age of 45, It says “The right of the **people** to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” “The people” are mentioned numerous time in the Constitution and the Amendments, and each time “the people” means _the people_; not a government-sanctioned body. Are you proposing that “the people” means “the people” in every place where it appears in the Constitution _except_ the Second Amendment? I’d like to hear you defend _that_. Your comment about the Swiss is interesting because under U.S. law (The United States Code, I think it’s Title 18, but I’d have to look that up), every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 is considered to be part of the unorganized militia. So even if “the people” doesn’t mean “the people” in the Second Amendment (but does everywhere else), and “militia” means a militia (and I don’t think the Amendment meets those interpretations), Americans may still have personal military weapons because they are part of the militia under the U.S. Code. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/84 "2002-03-27T23:04:46Z")
It’s [U.S.C. Title 10](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html): > [@](#): > > TITLE 10 \> Subtitle A \> PART I \> CHAPTER 13 Sec. 311. > > Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes > > (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. > > (b) The classes of the militia are - > (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and > (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/85 "2002-03-27T23:07:28Z")
Most firearms in this country are either rifles of roughly .30 caliber (whether bolt-action or semi-automatic), handguns of up to .45 caliber, or shotguns. We might for the sake of argument categorize these types as ‘basic’ firearms. We could then proceed to categorize .22 caliber guns as ‘inadequate’ to fulfill the requirements of a basic firearm, while .50 cal or fully automatic rifles are unusually powerful and beyond what should be considered a basic firearm. A clear line can be drawn between laws which would make it illegal to posess a basic firearm and laws which target other, specific types of guns or bureaucratic requirements designed to ensure accountability, etc. Likewise there is ‘basic’ ammunition for ‘basic’ guns. Riboflavin: > [@](#): > > The NRA supported the ban on teflon coated bullets, though they shouldn’t have. They opposed the ban on all rifle ammunition stronger than .22 rimfire, which is what the original ban that became the ban on teflon bullets was. Without being able to see the original bill (how far did it get?) I would hazard a guess that it was poorly worded so that it _might_ be interpreted as banning centerfire rifle ammo. Since banning basic ammuintion for basic firearms was clearly not the intention, only legislation banning specific, non-basic ammo passed. > [@](#): > > Hmmm… and yet another gun-controller unwilling or unable to answer the big question, how do their square ‘gun control’ with the 2nd and 14th amendments to the US constitution. By making a distinction between laws which would ban basic firearms and their ammo and laws which would help law enforcement while preserving your right to have a basic firearm. [quoty] No, they’re incemental steps on the way to complete disarmament, like what happened in the UK (early 20th C - unrestricted firearms, then some restrictions, licensing and registration, more and more restrictions, then the present situation). [/quote] Previous ‘increments’ do not make a legislation banning basic firearms somehow ‘invisible’ or inevitable. Every piece of legislation is debated on its merits and if its unconstitutional, or overwhelmingly unpopular, it won’t get passed. > [@](#): > > As I said before, why won’t any of you tell us what gun control you do and don’t support? Hell, are there any gun-control bills in congress RIGHT NOW that you don’t support? Alright, here’s what I DON’T support: - Any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which does not permit private ownership of what I’ve described as ‘basic’ firearms. - The assault weapons ban. - ‘Concealed carry’ laws that are more restrictive than the ‘must issue’ policies that some states have recently adopted. - The highly restrictive gun ordinances that exist in cities such as D.C. and Chicago. - Laws which require trigger locks or separate storage of ammo in the home. > [@](#): > > …people like you… You’ve got me pegged all right. > [@](#): > > Except that the alleged ‘middle ground’ always seems to be halfway between ‘whatever laws we have now’ and ‘complete disarmament’. Instead of going by what things ‘seem’ to be in your paranoia, how about sticking to _specific_ points of _specific_ laws. A law either prohibits you from having a basic firearm and its ammo or it doesn’t. There is no seem. > [@](#): > > LOL! The NRA has (to the dismay of many, like myself) SUPPORTED many ‘proposed restrictions on guns’. You know the Brady law, that requires FBI background checks before purchasing any firearm? They supported that, just as a single counterexample which disproves your allegation. So I exagerrated a little, but you didn’t address my main ‘allegation’ which is that laws banning basic firearms would never pass --regardless of how many previous ‘increments’–because of the 2nd Amendment, _and_ the overwhelming backlash among voters it would produce, _and_ the power of the NRA and similar groups. And you’re afraid of Rosie O’Donnel? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/86 "2002-03-27T23:29:54Z")
No, **sqweels,** “they” (you do know that you’re painting with a 4-million-plus person paintbrush, yes?) don’t go ballistic at every proposed piece of gun control legislation; “they” go ballistic at every piece of legislation proposed by the Brady Bunch (good term, I’ll use it) that places the onus on the law abiding citizen, instead of upon law enforcement to apprehend, prosecute and incarcerate people who criminally misuse firearms, or traffick in them to restricted parties. “They” go ballistic when _another_ piece of crap proposed bill that’s nothng more than a thinly disguised attempt to put legitimate, law-abiding gun owners over the barrel for another round of administrative anal rape. The founders of HCI boasted publicly in the late 60’s ('68 or '69) after the passage of the Gun Control Act (thank you again, King George!) that it was only a matter of time before they had done away with public ownership of _firearms_ in the USA. After severe public backlash from grassroots Americans and the American Government (all three branches), they publicly boasted that they would incrementally whittle away at gun ownership with moderated words “couched always as reasonable” to do away with public gun ownership. That “somebody is lying” jab is correct: it’s the Brady Bunch, Rosie, Susan, Schumer, Feinstein and a few more, and they’re doing it through their teeth. **CaptMurdoh’s** sarcastic jobe at gun owers is just one more example of ignorant public perception gone awry. He seems to be implying that only rural militants own guns and would be willing to use them against “government gone awry.” As a member of the “gun culture” for 29 years, I’ve met more lawyers, scientists, engineers, military personnel (commissioned and noncommissioned officers) and MBAs in gun clubs, gun shows, shooting ranges and NRA meeting than Cletus McRednecks. Polls and surveys be damned, I’ve lived, breathed and fired guns in and around other gun owners more than most other Americans; I _know_ the “truth” about guns and gun owners. We are to the greatest degree (easily 99% +) peaceful, law abiding, tax paying citizens; we salute the flag, respect law enforcement officers and public servants, and believe fervently in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We believe and practice safe, responsible gun ownership. We also believe that the government is limited in what it is supposed to, and can, do. It has no business dictating excessive, increasingly restrictive _infringements_ in our rights as citizens; especially when it’s thinly disguised PC pablum to appease a few hand-wringing, bed-wetting hoplophobes. **CaptMurdoch** does make an excellent point that a stand-up fight against the American military would end in a quick and ignomious death for any nominal “freedom fighters,” and that _alternative tactics_ wouls also be in order to compliment traditional guerilla tactics. But just look at what a few dozen poorly armes, scarcely trained Jews did in the Warsaw Ghetto against the might of the Third Reich. Yes, they perished; what they undertook was too little, too late. But the impact! Tying up an entire Army for three weeks! Think of what they could have done with decent carbines and rifles, with a stockpile of ammo, some training, and time to plan. Neither Guderian or Rommel could’ve taken Warsaw w/o making it look like Dresden after the 8th got done with it. Which kind of defeats the purpose, but not if you don’t mind fighting the fight and maybe sacrificing yourself for what you believe in, as most good soldiers do. But to preclude such an unpleasant state of affairs, I, and 3,999,999+ of my fellow NRA members (plus the good folks at the Second Amendment Foundation, The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, oh, the list goes on-and-on) resist the incremental encroachment of our right to keep and bear. We are not averse to _any and all_ gun control legislation; we _are_ against _any and all_ guin control legislation that further erodes our rights; right to privacy (registration and licensing), mandatory storage (4th amendment, anyone?) and so on. Contrary to the liberal establishments unflattering portrayal of gun owners as ignorant, dirty, vicious rednecks (who wants their wimmin’s docile, barefoot and pregnant; who wants the darkies and other mud people “in their proper place;” who think that the Masons/Illuminati/Trilateral Commission/Space Aliens/Elvis are behind some One World New World Order conspiracy), almost every gun owner I’ve met in the last 29 years of my life were fairly libertarian in their general outlook, favoring personal liberty generally, inspite of personal views. Like I am generally against abortion (just on general principle) but support the pro-choice groups; I find most pornography distasteful, but I support the right of Hugh Heffner and Larry Flynn (?) to publish their magazines; I don’t do drugs, and don’t particularly like them on principle (I’m talking things like cocaine and heroin), but believe that our War on Drugs is more dangerous to our liberties than the drugs and their users themselves are. **And I am NOT unique as a gun owner.** What I find interesting (both **AZCowboy** and author John Ross got me to thinking about this) is that anti-gunners cite _U.S. v. Miller_ as the definitive personal right/collective right ruling on the issue, when in reality it simply didn’t recognize Jack Miller’s claim that his sawed-off shotgun was for militia purposes, as it wasn’t within their judicial notice that such an implement was part of any ordinary military equipment. This would imply that for a weapon the be kept and bourne by a private citizen under the 2nd, it would have to have a _military_ application of some form or another (and I won’t even address how much short-barreled shotguns had been used by military and law enforcement prior to 1939!). This seems to stand the National Firearm Act of 1934 right on its ear! The $200 tax and registration on automatic weapons are clearly an infringement, and unreasonably exceeded Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. Then the Gun Control Act of 1968 tried to establish a “sporting purpose” definition on firearms, _in blatatnt violation of **both** the individual and collective right interpretation of not only the 2nd, but of U.S. v. Miller!_ Then in 1986, along came the Volkmer-McLure Act, later known as the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which tried to repeal the dumbest aspects of the GCA '68 by allowing unrestricted interstate travel and transport of firearms for private owners on legitimate business (such as hunting out-of-state). Some jackass named William Hughes from New Jersey jumped up in the last 30 seconds of discussion with an amendment, and inspite of not being on the agenda, was recognized and his silly amendment was added, contrary to floor procedure (gotta love those Democrats). If Hughes had been a little smarter, he could’ve done some real damage; what he wanted was to permanently ban all future private transactions of Class III firearms, and if he knew how to write a bill, he would’ve got it. What he did manage to do was ban any private manufatcure of Class III weapons, _even to those previously licensed to do so, including private companies like Browning!_ King George I fucked us in 1989 by signing the prohibition against importation of “Assault Weapons,” starting the trend in legislation against “assault weapons;” a ill-defined category of guns that in an average intepretation is used so seldom in crime that the FBI and Justice Dept. don’t even bother to track it. I can’t say that that cost him the election in '92, but he sure as fuck didn’t get _my_ vote, and if my fellow memebers of the “gun culture” are any indication, he didn’t get their’s, either. Those ignorant of their firearms history wouldn’t know it, but every decent machinegun made for the U.S.A. came from the workshops of privately owned companies and individuals: people like John Browning, Hiram Maxim, and Eugene Stoner. Those of us who are familiar with the legislative, judicial and administrative history of the 2nd and various gun control laws _are_ getting very PO’d at the schizo nature of gun control and various proposed gun control laws. We feel as if we’re being hit from every angle just about all of the time. Armor Piercing Bullet Bans target hunting ammunition; Assault Weapon Bans target guns made with late-19th Century technology; Handgun Bans target the most effective self-defense tool for the weak and infirm as well as honest citizens; Environmental “regulations” target hunters with “lead bullet/shot” bans and “noise pollution;” animal rights groups routinely attempt to disrupt state-sanctioned hunting grounds, interfering with licensed, law-abiding citizens in the course of a long-established and recognized sport; News Media routinely give disproportionate and often inaccurate coverage to gun crimes and anti-gun issues; The BATF changes their adminstrative routines so often that they _make_ “criminals” of legitimate licensed firearms dealers, then arrest them and use asset siezure laws to bankrupt them into plea bargains; the list goes on… **ITR Champion:** _your_ attitude scares me. I have two recent personal examples of “our government” oppressing _me._ I was assaulted at work by an African-American. I shoved him off of me, and the altercation was broken up by fellow co-workers. This jackass called the police on _me!_ The officer took our story, and declined to arrest either of us, but advised us both of the procedures to undertake if eithe rof us wnated to press charges against the other. The jackass told our _African-American_ supervisor _I_ attacked _him._ In spite of witnesses in my favor, _I_ was “let go.” The jackass pressed charges, and I went to trial for misdemeanor assault. The DA dismissed the charges against me before it went to a grand jury. I pressed charges against the jackass, and they stuck. He now has a criminal record. My former employer tried to block my unemployment claim, but lost, _badly._ The Texas Workforce Commission granted my benefits, ruling that I was terminated for causes other than the one stated (that I was fighting at the worksite), as the person who attacked _me_ (verified by court documents and witness statements) was convicted of misdemeanor assault in that “incident” and yet my former employer took no action against _him._ However, when I went to the EEOC to file a grievance against my former employer, with court records and witness statements from my coworkers (many of them Afircan-American, as well) in my favor, the _African-American_ case worker said there was “insufficient evidence” to open a case against my employer. Then, to top it all off, the VA cut off all of my education benefits last Novemeber. They recently (98 or 99) enacted an arbitrary ruling that if you haven’t used all of your benefits within 10 years of separation from the service, you lose them. Never mind that that was not made a part of my agreement in enrolling in those benefits when I enlisted, nor were they part of my agrement when I separated from the active duty miltary in 1991, or the Reserves in 1994. They just decided they wanted to keep _my money_ (yes, _my money_; I paid into the program out of my own pocket as an investment while in the Army) and wrote a “regulation,” or “administrative policy,” or whatever you want to call it, to do so. Hi-Ho! Fuck you, **Tank!** Don’t tell _me_, **Champ,** that our own federal government’s greay, money-grubbing hands can’t rest heavily upon the people. Tell the people of Wounded Knee; tell every Native American and African-American that it can’t; tell the Mormons out in Utah; tell it to every Vietnamese that lived through America’s involvement in Vietnam; tell the Branch Davidians at Waco, tell it to Vikki and Sam Weaver. Take heed: gun owners are just the next batch of “niggers” The Man is lining up to take a crack at. Being a civil, civic minded kinda guy, I limit my activities to the legal, democratically-approved methods of garnering grass-roots support to enact legislative change, as do all gun owners. So far. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/87 "2002-03-27T23:41:46Z")
**Desert Geezer:** having spent 6 years of my life in the M-1 Abrams family of vehicles and being an amateur student of armored warfare, I _know_ precisely how to take out Armor using basic infantry/guerilla tactics. Having spent an additional 3 years of my life in rotary-winged aviation, I also think I know the particular frailties and vulnerabilities of rotary and fixed winged aircraft, and might know a thing or two about effectively countering them. And just think, I’m only one of an estimated _150,000,000_ gun owners in the USA. Imagine what all of those battle-hardened Vietnam-era vets (who also got fucked by their governement and its various agencies) know and can teach to willing partisans. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/88 "2002-03-28T00:43:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > Take heed: gun owners are just the next batch of “niggers” The Man is lining up to take a crack at. Holy Christ, this is maybe the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this board, ever. Props to you, homeboy, keep it real! ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/89 "2002-03-28T01:34:57Z")
Holy S\*\*\*!!! Sittin’ on the sidelines, puttin’ in my lame ass two cents, waitin’ for the big dogs to walk the walk, in comes ExTank, talking some smack-down!!! OOOO-Raahhhh!!! You go boy!!! ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/90 "2002-03-28T03:20:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > We could then proceed to categorize .22 caliber guns as ‘inadequate’ to fulfill the requirements of a basic firearm, while .50 cal or fully automatic rifles are unusually powerful and beyond what should be considered a basic firearm. What magically makes .50 cal rifles ‘unusually powerful’? The current laws allow rifles of up to and including .50 cal, while anything over .50 cal (except for shotguns) is classed as a ‘destructive device’ and falls into the same territory as fully automatic weapons. This was done in the 1934 National Firearms Act, so it’s hardly a new law. Why do we need to declare .50 cal rifles ‘too much’, and will someone’s .49cal rifle be declared as ‘too much’ in the next round of laws? Are the laws you want to pass to end the terrible scourge of the .50 going to also ban shoguns, or are you going to be careful about that? Really, is there any reason OTHER than the recent (and baseless - IIRC, there hasn’t been a single .50cal rifle used in a crime) Brady Bunch propoganda to change the laws relating to .50 caliber rifles? This precisely illustrates my point; I’m quite willing to bet that you can’t make a rational argument to restrict .50cal rifles as opposed to leaving the classification of ‘firearm’ and ‘destructive device’ as it is - so why do you want to change a 60-year-old classification? > [@](#): > > A clear line can be drawn between laws which would make it illegal to posess a basic firearm and laws which target other, specific types of guns or bureaucratic requirements designed to ensure accountability, etc. Unless, of course, the ‘basic’ firearm category keeps getting redrawn. First it’s ‘.50 caliber sniper rifles that terrorists use’, then it’s ‘.49 caliber rifles that attempt to skirt the .50 cal law’, and proceeds from there. > [@](#): > > Without being able to see the original bill (how far did it get?) I would hazard a guess that it was poorly worded so that it _might_ be interpreted as banning centerfire rifle ammo. Cite a single instance of the BATF interpreting a single gun control law in a manner that is less restrictive than the text of the actual law. What’s amusing is that you criticized the NRA for opposing this particular piece of legislation, yet they opposed it when it had the ‘poor wording’ you object to and supported it when it clearly banned specific ‘non-basic’ ammo. What was your complaint about the NRA again? > [@](#): > > Since banning basic ammuintion for basic firearms was clearly not the intention, only legislation banning specific, non-basic ammo passed. LOL! Yeah, sure, Ted Kennedy wouldn’t like to ‘accedentally’ ban all rifle ammunition for civilians. > [@](#): > > Previous ‘increments’ do not make a legislation banning basic firearms somehow ‘invisible’ or inevitable. Every piece of legislation is debated on its merits and if its unconstitutional, or overwhelmingly unpopular, it won’t get passed. > [@](#): > > Alright, here’s what I DON’T support: > > - Any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which does not permit private ownership of what I’ve described as ‘basic’ firearms. > > - The assault weapons ban. > > - ‘Concealed carry’ laws that are more restrictive than the ‘must issue’ policies that some states have recently adopted. > > - The highly restrictive gun ordinances that exist in cities such as D.C. and Chicago. > > - Laws which require trigger locks or separate storage of ammo in the home. > > You’ve got me pegged all right. You stated that you were opposed to the NRA, and considered them hysterical and opposed to any restriction on guns, which led me to believe that you held a position on guns more restrictive than that of the NRA. Since what you’ve listed is pretty much what the NRA lobbies for, why do you deride and claim to oppose them? Surely, if the NRA is as bad as you claim, you can actually cite instances of them opposing ‘reasonable’ laws, or supporting ‘irresponsible’ laws. I can’t be expected to be a mind reader, and when you assert in your writings that you consider a particular group to be hysterical and opposed to restrictions you would approve of on guns, it is perfectly reasonable for me to presume that you believe that you’re opposed to legislation that they support. > [@](#): > > Instead of going by what things ‘seem’ to be in your paranoia, Paranoia, is it? I bet you’d have made the same accusation to people in New York, California, Illinios, Washington DC, and Maryland shortly before the confiscation of weapons even you would class as ‘basic weapons’. > [@](#): > > how about sticking to _specific_ points of _specific_ laws. How about giving a _specific_ reason why a _specific_ law should be passed, and one a bit better than ‘ohh, .50 cal sniper rifles! bad!’. > [@](#): > > A law either prohibits you from having a basic firearm and its ammo or it doesn’t. That’s a pretty tautological statement. However, a law can prohibit you from having one basic firearms but not others, and another law can come along and require registration, then another one calls for confiscation of the registered ones but not ALL basic firearms, then another one comes along… (and this isn’t a theoretical argument, look at the UK for an example). > [@](#): > > There is no seem. It seems that you missed the point of my ‘seem’, in a way that looks rather deliberate. > [@](#): > > So I exagerrated a little, but you didn’t address my main ‘allegation’ which is that laws banning basic firearms would never pass Yes, just like they haven’t passed in New York, California, Illinois, Washington DC, Maryland, Mass., New Jersey and some other states that I’m forgetting. > [@](#): > > –regardless of how many previous ‘increments’–because of the 2nd Amendment, Of course, because the second amendment (extended to the states by the 14th amendment), magically prevents such legislation in New York, California, Illinois, Washington DC, Maryland, Mass., New Jersey and some other states that I’m forgetting. And because there are people like you who interpret ‘shall not be infringed’ as ‘shall not be infringed as long as a nasty name like cop-killer or sniper rifle doesn’t get slapped onto it’. > [@](#): > > _and_ the overwhelming backlash among voters it would produce, _and_ the power of the NRA and similar groups. Which, as I pointed out, is IN SPITE of you who claim to be in favor of the right to bear arms but fall in line with Brady Bunch initiatives as they come out. For example, your position on the evil ‘.50 cal sniper rifles’. > [@](#): > > And you’re afraid of Rosie O’Donnel? \*\* I never even mentioned Rosie O’Donnel, and don’t in general except as an example of the raw hypocricy of the gun-grabbers. The fact that Sarah Brady supported making her son 43 times or 22 times or 19 kids/day (whichever statistic they’re spouting this week) more likely to kill her by buying him a ‘cop-killer sniper rifle’ is a bit better example, though, and is the one I’ll be sticking to from now on. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/91 "2002-03-28T04:06:31Z")
_The New York Daily News_ reported that Sarah Brady may have skirted Delaware’s gun laws when she bought a gun for her son: > [@](#): > > The Delaware Department of Justice initially insisted to the Daily News that gun purchasers must declare who the weapon was intended for so that person’s background could be checked. > > On Friday, a spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Justice said it misinterpreted the law and Brady was not obligated to state that the gun was for her son as long as he was legally qualified to own a gun. > > In addition, a spokesman for Brady said, “Sarah Brady told the gun store that the gun was for her son and filled out the forms that they asked her to fill out.” Delaware is much less strict than California. Here, that would be called a “straw purchase” and she would have faced charges. But isn’t it interesting that someone who spends all of her time telling everyone how bad guns are, bought one for her son? Of course, the children of the Political Elite are more trustworthy than the average American. I mean, you’d never see George Dubya’s niece use illegal drugs or _ever_ see a Kennedy be involved in an alcohol-related fatal accident. So it’s logical to assume that it’s okay for the son of a powerful anti-gun lobbyist lobbyist (or Rosie McDonnell, since someone brought her up) to have a gun just as long as The People don’t get their hands on them. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/92 "2002-03-28T04:08:25Z")
Criminey. There should be only one “lobbyist” in that sentence, and it’s Rosie \*O’\*Donnell. ---
**Author:** ![Barking\_Spider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Barking\_Spider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Spider)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/93 "2002-03-28T04:42:06Z")
In order for a firearm to qualify as an assault rifle, it MUST be select-fire. That is, it must be able to fire in either full automatic or semi-automatic modes, controlled by a selector switch. If it doesn’t have select-fire capabilities, it’s not an assault rifle. MOST, but not all, assault rifles, share these other characteristics: -Magazine fed -Carbine length -pistol grip stock -bolt stays back upon firing last round out of magazine -intermediate caliber(.223, .30, .308 etc.) Examples of assault rifles are M16s, AK47s, AK74s, M14s. Now, the term “assault weapon”, on the other hand, was invented by liberals and gun grabbers to describe semi-auto versions of real assault rifles. These have most of the appearances of real military rifles, but they only fire in a semi auto mode, therefore, they are not assault rifles. No soldier would ever carry one of these into battle either, because he would be outgunned by an enemy with a real assault rifle. AR 15s are the civilian, semi-auto versions of a military, select-fire M16. The media has done a good job fooling people about what “assault weapons” really are. They would have the public believe that they are just like military machine guns, built for nothing more than “spraying” bullets at innocent babies and grandmothers. In reality, “assault weapons” is just a made up term to describe certain semi-auto rifles. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/94 "2002-03-28T04:56:46Z")
> [@](#): > > AR 15s are the civilian, semi-auto versions of a military, select-fire M16. Of course, you can buy an M-1 Carbine (which _is_ an actual military arm) or a Ruger Mini-14 (which, like the AR-15, was originally marketed as a varmint rifle), which can hold 30-round magazines, are centrefire, and have the same rate of fire as an AR-15, and _they_ aren’t so-called “assault weapons”. But they’re functionally identical to firearms that are on the banned list. (Note: “Banning” isn’t an infringement on our Civil Rights; it’s just an _encroachment_ on them.) What makes an M-1 Carbine or a Ruger Mini-14 different from a firearm on the banned list? Well, they _look_ different. As I said before, the “characteristics” listed in California law are all cosmetic. Since they are functionally identical, there is no other conclusion other than that the law is arbitrary. If the law is arbitrary, then it’s unfair; and in the past laws that have been declared arbitrary have been found unConstitutional. And speaking of the Constitution, are convicted felons exempt from gun registration? They are prohibited from owning guns. If they are required to register them, then they are incriminating themselves. Thus, their 5th Amendment protections have been violated. Registration is supposed to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals”, yet criminals cannot be charged with failure to register their guns because they seem to be exempt. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/95 "2002-03-28T06:09:32Z")
Good point, **Johnny,** about the 5th Ad. thingy. IIRC, there was actually a court case along those lines. I guess Sens. Schumer, Feinstein and now Clinton will just have to pass _another_ gun control law, banning all guns, since we can’t force the criminals to obey the _last_ gun control law ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/96 "2002-03-28T07:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > And speaking of the Constitution, are convicted felons exempt from gun registration? Of course they are. It makes perfect sense that the constitution protects a felon from registering a gun, but that the simple second doesn’t protect me from the same requirement. In the 1968 case of Haynes vs. United States, the US Supreme court ruled 7-1 that a felon cannot be convicted for failing to register a weapon because of his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/97 "2002-03-28T07:11:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Toaster52 \* > \*\* First of all, I want to reiterate that my definition of “militia” would be each and every individual of this country, _as individuals_; NOT an organized compilation of said individuals. Please don’t get this confused with groups such as the Michigan Militia, et al. Much less the various state National Guards. > So…is this “militia” doing anything to prevent the government from suppressing their rights? What evidence is there that this militia is active in combatting government suppression? Funny, I thought that’s what voting was all about (and please…it’s a whole 'nother thread about how we are destroying ourselves by voting stupidly or not at all). What specific actions would the government have taken if we did not have guns? Well, I would hope that we as a country have reached Nirvana, and that every single action that every government (local and on up) performs is solely for the purposes of enhancing the life of its citizens, giving them ease of existence, freedom from any want, 100-mpg cars that don’t pollute, free health care, etc etc etc… > > Bah…it is to laugh. > I love this country, and I have faith in its systems. HOWEVER, I am also a realist, and as long as people are people, there will ALWAYS be the temptation for governments to suppress the rights of its citizens…for your own good, of course… > > UNLESS THERE IS A COUNTER-BALANCE TO THAT TEMPTATION. > An armed populace. > > \*\*\* THIS \*\*\* is why there is a 2nd Amendment!!! > \*\* Ok, so the militia is everybody in the country. In that case, it would seem that just about any action that anybody takes against excessive government power is an action of the militia _by definition_. That seems to eliminate any debate about whether or not the militia is actually a good idea. Here’s my viewpoint: in the past, groups that have opposed the government and fought for social change have had the most success using mainly non-violent resistance. The Civil Rights movement is probably the best example. When a political movement turns to violence, it always ends up hurting itself in the court of public opinion, which is why I don’t think an armed citizenry is nearly as effective at curbing the government as is an alert and well-informed population. Since there’s been a quite a bit of Britain-bashing in this thread, let’s ask why the governments of England and Scotland don’t run rampant over the rights of their people. There are some areas where Americans have more rights than the English, and some areas where we have less (the most important example being that the English have been more successful at curbing the excesses of the war on drugs). Oh, and **Johnny** , **Tank** , do you have any examples of convicted felons trying to use such a loophole, or is this just speculation? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/98 "2002-03-28T08:36:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Riboflavin \* > **Yeah, right. If you don’t think that guns are bad, why are you willing to claim that more violence, but less violence involving guns is better than less violence, with more of it involving guns? Why is it OK for a strong, healthy man to defend himself using deadly force with a ‘pointed stick’, but bad for someone weaker to defend themselves using a gun?** Yeah Right. Damned Right. Abso-f\*\*king-lutely right - I like guns. I enjoy shooting. I think they’re about as bad as cars, computers or any other device I could misuse if I so chose. If you want to accuse me of lying, may I suggest you take it to the pit where I’ll be happy to discuss it fully. And again, stop with the strawman arguments - where have I made any sort of judgement or claim that one form of violence is better than another? If you try to read what’s actually been written, rather than just knee-jerking away, you’ll see that all I’ve done is question the logic you’ve used in your claim. You’ll also see I’ve tried as hard as I can to break into simple steps why I find your argument flawed. Something wrong with that? > [@](#): > > **I’ve said that VIOLENT crime is worse in Britain than in the US, not that one particular subtype of violent crime is worse in Britain, and have pointed out that it’s been rising steadily since the handgun ban (while US violent crime rates have been dropping). There is, quite simply, no flaw whatsoever in my logic - if gun control in Britain is ‘working’ by creating a higher violent crime rate of which a lesser amount involves guns, it’s still something that I want no part of.** There is a big flaw in your logic. You’re implying that gun control is (and I quote you) “creating a higher violent crime rate”. How the hell do you come to that conclusion? I’ve heard many explanations for crime rates, from poor economic conditions to upbringing to tv, but nowhere have I ever read that absence of guns causes a rise in assault or any other violent crime. Please justify this claim, or retract it. > [@](#): > > \*\* The flaw in your logic is in presuming that I share your ‘guns are bad, getting raped by a guy who has a knife is much better than getting raped by a guy with a gun’ mentality, which I don’t. \*\* Oh really - please show where I’ve made that assumption, or indicated it in any way. Or indeed, please explain how you work out that that’s my mentality either? My mentality, plain and simply, is that I will happily defend myself in whatever situation, to the best of my ability with whatever object I need - but in a country where there are very few criminals using guns, it’s very unlikely that I won’t be able to do that job without a gun myself. I really dislike the sort of gun owner who’s only defence of their pastime is to impune others, to accuse them of lying or of being happier to be raped rather than defend themselves. You see, it’s people like that who polarised the issue of gun ownership, and made it so easy for anti gunners in the UK to bring about bans on pistols and most rifles. I’m going hunting this easter, on a friends estate near Fort William. I’m going to enjoy myself greatly, and I’m also taking two friends who will be first time shooters. That is how you show people that shooting is an enjoyable hobby and interest, not by your small minded accusations that other people are lying or too cowardly to defend themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/99 "2002-03-28T12:17:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, and Johnny, Tank, do you have any examples of convicted felons trying to use such a loophole, or is this just speculation? > [@](#): > > In the 1968 case of Haynes vs. United States, the US Supreme court ruled 7-1 that a felon cannot be convicted for failing to register a weapon because of his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485/100 "2002-03-28T15:49:50Z")
And why should anybody be defending their pastime? Owning a gun in the United States is a Constitutional right. That means I don’t have to defend my hobby or my collection to you or anyone else. So from now on, I’m not going to. Why do I own guns, like to shoot, and want to buy more guns? None of your business. Like that answer? As for how I show people that shooting is an enjoyable and _peaceful_ pastime, well that’s easy. I take them to the range with me. Once they see with their own eyes that all of the gun owners there are safety conscious, careful and respectful individuals who do not show up drunk and haphazardly point loaded guns everywhere, they’re usually convinced that what the Brady Bunch has told them about gun owners isn’t true. Then I spend fifteen minutes or so going over all the safety issues of the particular firearm I’ve brought with me, teaching them what the parts are, how it works, what things to pay particular attention to, and always emphasizing the rules of safety. When that has been clearly and unequivocally imparted to them, I’ll let them handle the firearm unloaded. I stress that they never assume it is unloaded, that they always point it downrange, and I show them how to check the gun to see if there is a round in the chamber. I show them how to work the safety (if there is one), how to decock (on pistols with a hammer), how to hold it safely, how to stand, how to minimize the ‘kick’, tell them what to expect when firing, how to properly aim so that they don’t hit the ceiling or the floor. Then we cover loading, and I make them watch as I load the gun and unload it. I do this until they understand the procedure, then I have them fully load and unload the gun, showing me that they know the proper safety techniques and that they can handle the gun in a safe manner. Then I again tell them what to expect when they pull the trigger, and I step back slightly to allow them to shoot safely. I’m always close enough to help if anything goes wrong, but in an area where I’m out of the way of firing and spent casings. With handguns, it usually takes one full magazine to make a convert. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/99485.md?page=6)