# Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475 "2009-02-26T03:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/381 "2009-03-05T22:01:00Z")
**YogSosoth** , if I understand your position correctly, it goes something like this:[ul][li]the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they’re too dangerous to the public safety.[_]Guns are dangerous, by intent.[_]At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety.except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that’s dangerous.[/ul]If this is correct, then I see a broader issue to debate- the issue of what the government should legitimately have the power to proscribe in the name of public safety. I think you’ll find that a lot of people on this board are (small “l”) libertarians, and leery of excessive government power and intervention.[/li] The problem is that even given that the above premises were correct, it would still not address legitimate concerns: the idea that the government and it’s officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy; the question of real-world enforcibility of any form of prohibition (witness alcohol Prohibition, or the War on Drugs) and whether such prohibition not merely useless but counter-productive; and whether the supporters of an “assault weapon” ban are honest in both their intent and their assessment of the hazards of the weapons they propose to ban. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/382 "2009-03-05T22:12:58Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Oh, we’re playing the nitpicking game now are we? Theres no rights to own handguns and assault weapons either. The Constitution referred to “arms”, which in those days meant “muskets”. Do you know Gonzomax here on SDMB? He’s been touting that line for months and has yet to be able to offer any proof of it. Do you think you could provide a cite rather than something you pulled out of your ass? > [@](#): > > How slow does it have to go to make it not effective? Anything under 1200 fps or so will have a hard time penetrating a vest, but it will hurt like hell and will still cause internal injury. Cops wear vest that can protect them from being shot by their own weapon, usually a pistol. > [@](#): > > Other scenario: keeping the same speed, how much does the bullet have to weigh for it to be not effective? If you can get the projectile moving beyond that 1200 fps it will penetrate up to a level IIa vest, regardless of its weight. > [@](#): > > Also, how much drag would such a bullet produce if it wasnt shaped with a tip at the end, but completely flat? That would be designated as a [wadcutter.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadcutter) Due to the fact they are typically made of lead, they can usually not exceed 900 fps. Since they are used in competition, accuracy is not affected in the short ranges in which they excel. > [@](#): > > In that case, would a change in speed and weight make the same amount of difference? No. Physical limitations of the rifling inside the barrel of the gun, as well as its base metals used for construction limit the efficiency of a wadcutter round. If one were to make a wadcutter jacketed in copper, its ballistics would be much improved. But they already make other shaped bullets jacketed in copper. Wadcutters serve a particular purpose. > [@](#): > > Please draw a graph to illustrate No thanks. Any other questions genius? ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/383 "2009-03-05T22:30:32Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Oh, we’re playing the nitpicking game now are we? Theres no rights to own handguns and assault weapons either. The Constitution referred to “arms”, which in those days meant “muskets”. And in those days, freedom of the press only meant manual printing presses and leaflets, right? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody employ this line of reasoning with respect to the Bill of Rights _except_ when they were trying desperately to attack the right to bear arms. But even so, you’re really not up on recent case law, are you? Only last year, the Supreme Court in _D.C. v. Heller_ unambiguously determined that the individual right to bear arms includes the right to own handguns, and further went on to say that blanket bans on entire classes of commonly used firearms would not pass Constitutional muster either. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > If you want to be able to own automatic weapons because the 2nd Amendment says “arms”, then you should feel the same way about C4 and TNT and pipe bombs Really? Why? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > You’ll have to describe that video if you want me to answer it right now, I cant view youtube here It’s a brief interview with Carolyn McCarthy, the congresswoman who introduced the most recent effort at an “assault weapon” ban. When pressed for details about the features banned under her bill, in particular the meaning of terms such as “barrel shroud,” she repeatedly dodged the question, until she finally answered “I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is, I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.” Also, I must say this struck me as odd. Emphasis mine: > [@YogSosoth](#): > > For the same reason why we dont allow guns on airplanes, or next to the president, **we cant trust everyone not to go shooting off at somebody at any time**. Its better to just ban it to ensure total safety. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > But my second reason for bringing it up is that I highly doubt you people see guns so safely as you sometimes make it out to be. **You guys seem paranoid…** … :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/384 "2009-03-05T23:39:54Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > My reasoning is: anything that makes a gun more dangerous. You want to defend your home, fine. Have a handgun, the end. No need to allow grenade launchers, bayonets, and other stuff onto it. Grenade launchers are already prohibited by default because the grenades would be illegal. There might actually be a law banning grenade launchers anyway, I’m not sure. Do you think the added lethality of a bayonette is a serious issue plaguing our society? > [@](#): > > They’re unnecessary for defense, which is what you’re purporting to use it for, so leave it. That goes for the flash supressors, and other items in the AWB. They are perfectly legitimate things to ban I know - why would a guy who was shooting at night not want to be blinded by the muzzle flash, right? Totally illegitimate! And my god, a collapsible stock - why, then anyone who could conceal 2 and a half feet by a foot worth a metal could carry around a gun then! > [@](#): > > I suppose you’re right in that regard. But I happen to agree with their desire to infringe on what you call a right. Like the whole fire in the crowded theater thing, I agree with banned assault weapons, so I’m not going to go out of my way to attack it Banning yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, or committing libel or slander, is not equivelant to banning a type of gun. In one instance, you’re commiting a crime and you cannot fall back on “I have freedom of speech!” to absolve you of that crime. The act itself is inherently harmful. Owning certain types of weapons are not inherently harmful. The equivelant of not being able to use your first amendment rights to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is equivelant to you not being able to use your second amendment rights to fire a gun wildly into the air. You’re banning the harmful act. > [@](#): > > I’m fine with the Attorney General determining whats a gun and what needs to be banned. Got a problem with it? Wait until the next election cycle. Its call democracy, get used to it. Guns are not special Are you also fine with an attorney general declaring American citizens “enemy combatants” and locking them up indefinitely? Authorizing secret illegal wiretaps, etc? Would you object to any of that? If so, stfu, and wait for the next election, it’s called democracy. > [@](#): > > Hilarious example 😃 > > First of all, I dont think I would vote for a guy named Retard, so he must be someone from another district. Second, you’re essentially saying that my analogy is not detrimental enough to my argument so I should replace it with yours. And third, even taking your analogy to heart, we can still agree that illegal street racing is a problem and find ways to solve it, unlike your next step of allowing everyone to have fast cars and getting rid of the speed limits so that slow people will automatically drive faster in order to be safe; if they dont, tough luck. No, you missed my point. In my analogy, the senator is attempting to ban something that seems to be a problem (because it’s portrayed in movies that way) but isn’t actually a significant problem. And then he crafts a solution anyway - a solution that doesn’t even target the supposed problem (in this case “machine guns”) but instead targets something that looks similar. It’s bizarre and ironic that in the same post, you talk about how we should get pistols instead of “assault weapons” to defend ourselves, because the latter are just too dangerous to society. This is absurd in so many ways. The vast majority of gun crime committed in the US is with handguns - they’re small and easily concealable. Almost no one takes a rifle along when they go off to commit crime. And yet you’ve determined that because of dangerous features like bayonette lugs, these rifles, which are used in an insignificantly small number of crimes, should be banned, while advocating that people replace them with handguns, which are used in the vast majority of crime. Even if I wanted to credit you with an honest position (which I don’t - as you said earlier in the thread, you want to see any gun ban that eventually leads to them being gone), you’re advocating things that are completely illogical. If there’s any case to be made for public safety, it would be the banning of handguns. Not that I would make that case, but it’s far more logical than banning any sort of rifle. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/385 "2009-03-06T00:43:47Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > As far as your other question, its easy. For the same reason why we dont allow guns on airplanes, or next to the president, we cant trust everyone not to go shooting off at somebody at any time. Its better to just ban it to ensure total safety. > > I dont know if you’re a Republican or Democrat, generally liberal or conservative, but one hypocrisy I’ve found lies in every gun rights administration. When the Secret Service canvasses a location and checks every person coming in to meet the pro-gun president, doesnt that debunk the whole gun and trust argument? If, as they so eloquently put it, more guns will lead to everyone fearful of each other and not daring to commit a crime with it, then shouldnt the SS hand out guns to stadiums awaiting a presidential speech? Wouldnt more guns make things more safe? After all, its unconstitutional to assume everyone’s a criminal right? Isnt that your argument?? Then we shouldn’t trust Secret Service agents with guns, right? After all, guns are bad. The President gets guys with guns to protect him, but who do you get to protect you? More importantly; Who do I get to protect me? Don’t say Police Officers; they’re there to investigate and catch criminals, they stop _maybe_ 1 in 1000 crimes. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > So seriously, no, we shouldnt trust people to do good with their guns. It only takes a few people, or rather thousands every year, to spoil something which should only be used for self defense. If I dont trust my neighbor not to shoot me, then I want all guns banned. Of course, the danger of a gun is in addition to the unnecessity, as I’ve said, and everything else about them. I would NEVER say that nobody should be untrusted with everything because they might be abused. That would mean silly things like pencils and rocks would be banned, and I’m so not for that. Those things have other uses, other SAFE uses. Not so with a gun, whose only purpose is to drive a hot lead through something What about toy rockets, should we ban them too? They have no other purpose than to put people at risk from falling debris, and someone could **easily** make a Quasam-type missile out of them. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Someone else has already brought it up and I responded to it, so please read above. But my second reason for bringing it up is that I highly doubt you people see guns so safely as you sometimes make it out to be. You guys seem paranoid, and want to get the deadliest weapon possible to arm yourselves with in preparation for the day you apparently become a target of the mafia Or a hapless criminal. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Here’s something I hope you will answer. If its just about safety, then why wouldnt a few handguns do? Handguns are used in crimes **more** often than shotguns or “Assault Weapons.” If your goal is to reduce fatalities, you should be arguing for that, not the AWB which **doesn’t ban anything but cosmetics.** > [@YogSosoth](#): > > And has anybody here even considered a taser? Doesn’t penetrate certain types of clothing, and doesn’t effect people who are under the influence of certain types of Stimulants. There’s a reason that police are trained to use tasers against suspects not posing an immediate physical risk to themselves or others. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Maybe thats true. However I’m finding it hard to eliminate my ignorance with all of the shouting and ad hominem attacks. I only give when I receive, and I tend to think I’m actually holding back a bit No one has ad hominem attacked you. We’ve observed your behavior from the start of the thread and objectively commented on it. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Nah, I consider race to be a bigger factor than guns. I consider such social injustice to affect me, and everyone, more than guns. Anyone who says that skin color should be a basis of discrimination is using superficial and poor logic. But as far as guns go, thats a matter of safety and necessity mostly. For the same reason why people are allowed to own some types of guns, and not other types of armaments (the nukes thing), then there can be said to be a sliding scale of safety to liberty that we employ. I simply draw the line in a different place than most Guns != Armaments This argument is repetitive and old. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > So I cant disagree with the DoJ, but you can disagree with elected congressmen? You can disagree with the DoJ, but doing so makes you look like you’re unable to see the wall in front of your face when te report clearly cites statistics. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Besides, its not like they are banning it in a vaccuum. Many people wanted the law passed. Obviously not _that_ many, considering that the democrats lost their majority in no small part because of it. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I would wager to guess at least some of them know what they are talking about. Its a stretch to assume that ALL people opposing your views are uneducated. I suggest you get some diversity training or something No, some people do know that it’s ineffective, like the Brady Campaign, but they see it as a step in banning **all** guns. They’re for the AWB for the same reason that PETA is for Breed Specific Legislation; both see it as a first step at banning something they disagree with. PETA: Animal Ownerhsip. Brady Campaign: Gun Ownership. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Which is the exact same argument for allowing people to own nukes or grenades. Yeah, I know its addressed in other posts but I’ll make it easy and put it here. The whole nukes and grenades are argument by the gun advocate side on this thread is seemingly dishonest and contradictory. You guys are essentially saying that things like that are already banned under the law and therefore thats the end of it. Whatever happened to the whole “its my job to determine whats necessary to defend myself” argument? You’re just throwing it all away because conveniently, theres a law already in place so you dont have to submit yourself to the hypocrisy That’s not at all what’s been argued. I have to wonder whether or not you’ve even bothered reading the responses, or you just reply with random words. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > My reasoning is: anything that makes a gun more dangerous. You want to defend your home, fine. Have a handgun, the end. No need to allow grenade launchers, bayonets, and other stuff onto it. They’re unnecessary for defense, which is what you’re purporting to use it for, so leave it. That goes for the flash supressors, and other items in the AWB. They are perfectly legitimate things to ban First: Handguns are used in more crimes than “Assault Weapons.” Second, Shotguns are more effective for home defense. Third: Bayonets don’t make guns more dangerous. Fourth: Grenades are already banned – what they banned was a little metal nubby, which made manufacturing costs on these firearms go up for no reason (different dye for Military and Civilian – also applicable to Bayonets). Defense is not the _only_ reason to own firearms. I own a few that are **only** for going to the range. I have friends who own them specifically for hunting (which a handgun would not fit the bill). Hunting and sport (targets) seem to be two things that you ignore completely. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Hopefully they’ll ban those too. I never said or implied that the AWB is the final word on the gun ban. Definitely ban all those weapons you say are more dangerous that currently have loopholes in the law currently. It’s not “loopholes in the law,” it’s **protected civil liberties**. The guns that are more deadly, by the way, are those Curio & Relic guns, Hunting rifles, etc. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I suppose you’re right in that regard. But I happen to agree with their desire to infringe on what you call a right. Like the whole fire in the crowded theater thing, I agree with banned assault weapons, so I’m not going to go out of my way to attack it Do me a favor and define “Assault Weapon,” please. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Your problem is that you want guns to be seen as some kind of special industry all to its own, like how the Republicans tried to (dunno if it passed) pass that law that makes all gun manufacturers not liable for their products. I mean, who thinks that blanket protections for an industry is a good idea?? Would you give the automakers that power? Hell no! So dont pretend your guns are any different. Actually, they were trying to protect gun makers from law suits specifically designed to bankrupt them. They were suing the gun manufacturers because someone shot someone else – it would be akin to if I sued for because someone ran me over with a car, or I sued the Louieville Slugger Corp. because someone hit me with a bat. The **person** is responsible for their actions, the gun didn’t go off by itself. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m fine with the Attorney General determining whats a gun and what needs to be banned. Got a problem with it? Wait until the next election cycle. Its call democracy, get used to it. Guns are not special … You didn’t make an argument for your case, there. You made an argument _against_ it… > [@YogSosoth](#): > > So your problem is…what? Some kind of dictatorial coup by the military? Yeah right, be serious No, the problem is that almost **all** firearms are used by some military or police organization at some level. It’s a huge country. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > So because I can use a broom to hit a baseball, its suddenly a bat? I dont see the problem with the above designation. “Sporting” guns are essentially the same thing as regular guns, except used to generally shoot deer and moose instead of people. Theres no problem with how they are defining it Define “regular” guns? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think making sure that swimming pools have fences around them, and beaches have lifeguards, is a good enough compromise. Its a way to give people some of what they want in exchange for safety. You know, the same thing they are doing with guns by banning the most dangerous ones and forcing safety locks and things like that on others. Maybe you should learn to compromise Compromise for what? There’s no compromise necessary. You want to take away **my** rights. Why would I want to compromise for that? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > First of all, I dont think I would vote for a guy named Retard, so he must be someone from another district. Second, you’re essentially saying that my analogy is not detrimental enough to my argument so I should replace it with yours. And third, even taking your analogy to heart, we can still agree that illegal street racing is a problem and find ways to solve it, unlike your next step of allowing everyone to have fast cars and getting rid of the speed limits so that slow people will automatically drive faster in order to be safe; if they dont, tough luck. … You seriously think his analogy helps your argument?! WHAT THE HELL!? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/386 "2009-03-06T00:45:37Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Don’t say Police Officers; they’re there to investigate and catch criminals, they stop _maybe_ 1 in 1000 crimes. More importantly, police officers have absolutely no legal responsibility to actually stop any crime they happen upon. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/387 "2009-03-06T01:10:35Z")
Out of curiousity, **Toddlerbob** and others, which of your arguments would apply if the law was specifically restricting the ownership of guns capable of fully automatic fire, rather than the vague and arbitrary restrictions it actually restricts? And, are there any further arguments that apply if weapons that were semi-automatic were restricted as well? ---
**Author:** ![BrandonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@BrandonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrandonR)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/388 "2009-03-06T01:13:56Z")
Am I the only one rooting for this thread to be moved to the pit just so everyone can take their gloves off and let go of their thinly-veiled civility? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/389 "2009-03-06T01:26:13Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Out of curiousity, **Toddlerbob** and others, which of your arguments would apply if the law was specifically restricting the ownership of guns capable of fully automatic fire, rather than the vague and arbitrary restrictions it actually restricts? Many (myself included), not all of us, don’t believe the restrictions on fully automatic firearms to be prudent or necessary. However – the arguments applied would be that this ban targets aesthetics, not function. While the _function_ is what’s being banned with Fully Automatic Firearms, it’s cosmetics in this instance. The banning of Full Auto Weaponry bans one trigger pull multiple shots, the banning of “Assault Weapons” is an arbitrary definition based on what a gun looks likw, not what it actually does. > [@begbert2](#): > > And, are there any further arguments that apply if weapons that were semi-automatic were restricted as well? I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. I think you’re asking me to argue **for** restricting semi-auto firearms, in some manner? I cannot think of a supporting argument\* for it, frankly. I also cannot think of a supporting argument\* for banning (or keeping the ban) on Fully Automatic Firearms. \*Which stands up to intellectual scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/390 "2009-03-06T01:49:42Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Many (myself included), not all of us, don’t believe the restrictions on fully automatic firearms to be prudent or necessary. > > However – the arguments applied would be that this ban targets aesthetics, not function. While the _function_ is what’s being banned with Fully Automatic Firearms, it’s cosmetics in this instance. > > The banning of Full Auto Weaponry bans one trigger pull multiple shots, the banning of “Assault Weapons” is an arbitrary definition based on what a gun looks likw, not what it actually does. Right - the law as presented is frankly stupid. Arguments in favor of it inevitably run afoul of those stupidities. I guess I just wanted to filter out which arguments would apply were the law _less_ overtly stupid. Your argument that you need an assault weapon to defend yourself against “a hapless criminal”, for example, seems specious; _any_ gun larger than a derringer will serve that purpose. If you are allowed to keep your handguns and shotguns, then you’d be just fine. > [@Todderbob](#): > > I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. I think you’re asking me to argue **for** restricting semi-auto firearms, in some manner? > > I cannot think of a supporting argument\* for it, frankly. I also cannot think of a supporting argument\* for banning (or keeping the ban) on Fully Automatic Firearms. > > \*Which stands up to intellectual scrutiny. No, sorry, what I was trying to determine is whether the arguments for not banning ‘type of gun X’ were different from semi- and -fully automatic weapons. And I can easily think of an argument for banning fully automatic weapons - it’s the same argument I’d use to defend the banning of bazookas. Prezuming for a moment that it’s not in society’s best interest to let arbitrarily destructive hardware float around in the hands of the citizenry, the question becomes one of where to draw the line. There are strong constitutional and home defense (and less-strong hunting and sport shooting) arguments for allowing the populace to keep handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I can’t think of any argument _for_ having automatic weaponry, if the prior weapon types are allowed, though, so I see no reason _not_ to arbitrarily restrict automatic weaponry. If we’re going to restrict anything at all, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/391 "2009-03-06T01:59:31Z")
> [@BrandonR](#): > > Am I the only one rooting for this thread to be moved to the pit just so everyone can take their gloves off and let go of their thinly-veiled civility? 🙂 If I can’t call a spade a spade anymore over there I don’t see the point. Otherwise, I’m with ya. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/392 "2009-03-06T02:18:19Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Right - the law as presented is frankly stupid. Arguments in favor of it inevitably run afoul of those stupidities. Agree. This has been evidenced in abundance lately. > [@](#): > > I guess I just wanted to filter out which arguments would apply were the law _less_ overtly stupid. Your argument that you need an assault weapon to defend yourself against “a hapless criminal”, for example, seems specious; _any_ gun larger than a derringer will serve that purpose. If you are allowed to keep your handguns and shotguns, then you’d be just fine. I don’t see many people arguing the self defense role for AW’s. It is a certain possibility however, especially with the shotguns that become AW’s in the last bill proposed. You know that there are now shotguns so named or configured, correct? Shotguns are a great HD gun. Because they are semi auto and might have a pistol grip does not diminish that ability yet it does make them banworthy. Why I oppose this bill so much is that it bans cosmetic features only. We’ve already done it once and per the DOJs from both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, it was ineffective, or at least inconclusive. I don’t want to see this bill get passed, and then 10 years later, see those idiots running congress go after something else. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/393 "2009-03-06T02:32:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Right - the law as presented is frankly stupid. Arguments in favor of it inevitably run afoul of those stupidities. Agreed. 😛 > [@begbert2](#): > > I guess I just wanted to filter out which arguments would apply were the law _less_ overtly stupid. Your argument that you need an assault weapon to defend yourself against “a hapless criminal”, for example, seems specious; _any_ gun larger than a derringer will serve that purpose. If you are allowed to keep your handguns and shotguns, then you’d be just fine. Ah, and this is where they catch you. 1. What is an _“Assault Weapon”_? 2. _“Assault Weapons”_ are not the only things banned in the AWB. Magazines with capacities over that of Rounds are banned too. And there have been many documented cases of people need that many **and more** to end an immediate threat to themselves or their family. > [@begbert2](#): > > No, sorry, what I was trying to determine is whether the arguments for not banning ‘type of gun X’ were different from semi- and -fully automatic weapons. On principle, yes, there is a difference. > [@begbert2](#): > > And I can easily think of an argument for banning fully automatic weapons - it’s the same argument I’d use to defend the banning of bazookas. Fully Automatic Firearms != Bazookas. The simple fact they fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull does not magically make them more dangerous than ones that fire only a single round per trigger pull. > [@begbert2](#): > > Prezuming for a moment that it’s not in society’s best interest to let arbitrarily destructive hardware float around in the hands of the citizenry, the question becomes one of where to draw the line. You have made the assumption, without proof, that fully automatic weapons are destructive devices. I’d like some proof, please. > [@begbert2](#): > > There are strong constitutional and home defense (and less-strong hunting and sport shooting) arguments for allowing the populace to keep handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I can’t think of any argument _for_ having automatic weaponry, if the prior weapon types are allowed, though, so I see no reason _not_ to arbitrarily restrict automatic weaponry. If we’re going to restrict anything at all, anyway. Constitutional Argument, Backed by [United States V. Miller](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller): Arms used in the Military are covered under the 2nd Amendment. There’s a constitutional argument, for you. So, how about the argument _for_ allowing fully automatic weapons being that legal Fully Automatic firearms have been used in less crimes that **any** other type of firearm (perhaps, even less than muskets). Only **two** since the NFA registry in 1934 has tracked them, both by police officers, one using a Police department weapon (so this one really wouldn’t count – since it is legal even though they’re banned for Civilian use). ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/394 "2009-03-06T03:10:45Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > My reasoning is: anything that makes a gun more dangerous. You want to defend your home, fine. Have a handgun, the end. No need to allow grenade launchers, bayonets, and other stuff onto it. They’re unnecessary for defense, which is what you’re purporting to use it for, so leave it. That goes for the flash supressors, and other items in the AWB. They are perfectly legitimate things to ban Your argument does not make sense. The United States does not have a Federal Blade On A Stick Ban, so really, how do you justify a law that bans things based on the sum of their **non-synergistic** parts? If a spear is okay and a rifle is okay, why is a combined rifle-spear banned? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/395 "2009-03-06T03:34:40Z")
For anyone who thinks the Government is more responsible with weapons than its citizens: The ATF (the **Firearm Specialists!** ) [lost 76 firearms, (semi-)recently](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091703662.html). Their total inventory is about 22,000. This puts their loss/theft rate equal, approximately, to that of the US Population at large. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/396 "2009-03-06T07:44:20Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Also in the legislation, any gun that is used by the military or any other Federal agency is hereby labeled an AW. They too are banned. Seriously? Wouldn’t that mean a Glock pistol or a Browning Hi-Power is banned? Or a Remington 700, which is used as a sniper rifle? There are lots of plain old normal looking weapons in use by the military and federal agencies. There must be more of a catch than that, isn’t there? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/397 "2009-03-06T08:27:35Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There must be more of a catch than that, isn’t there? Nope; it’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/398 "2009-03-06T09:31:38Z")
By the way, Yog, Todderbob has [something important to tell you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=509330). ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/399 "2009-03-06T11:18:35Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Question: if full-auto firearms are not flat-out banned, just very heavily regulated, then why are “assault weapons” proposed for complete banning? Would such a ban really say that I can’t own an AR-15 at all, but I can own an M-16? :dubious: Yes, you couldn’t own a new $1K AR-15, but you could own a $10K M-16 that’s 25+ years old (depending on your local laws and officials). ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/400 "2009-03-06T11:38:20Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Also in the legislation, any gun that is used by the military or any other Federal agency is hereby labeled an AW. They too are banned. Wait. What? How the hell can that survive Miller? The entire point of Miller was that the shotgun was not used by the armed forces. (Admittedly, no defense, or it would have been shown the shotgun was used by the armed forces.) This makes the Colt .45 an Assault Weapon? Hell, this makes a Remington 870 an Assault Weapon? I don’t think that could stand review at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=21)