Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Great Debates
321

It’s clear that you’re a reasonable person. You’re putting thought into your positions. We disagree, but I can at least debate with you in a way where I feel as though we understand each other intellectually. I think you’re trying to advocate what you feel is best - and if new information or lines of thought arise, you can adjust.

But most gun control advocates aren’t like this. They know, they just know, on an emotional level that guns are evil and if only us dumb savages were forced to give them up, society would be a much better place and we’d see the error in our ways.

Their primary motivators are emotional. And so they appeal to the emotion of others. Their arguments stem not from data or reason but from anecdotes and emotional appeals. More importantly, they aren’t concerned with rationally analyzing the best path, balancing rights and societal costs. They just want to reach their end goal using any tactic they can.

The problem for gun advocates then becomes - do you compromise with someone who believes in the elimination of something you consider a fundamental natural right? This relationship works almost exclusively one way - guns become more and more restricted over time. After every round of “compromise”, you give something up and get nothing in return - every round leaves you closer to what they want.

Sarah Brady has stated straight out that it is their goal to push any ban or restriction they can manage the political clout to pass in the eventual goal of pecking gun rights to death. Slippery slope is not a fallacy when the most well funded organization working against you has stated that this is their very tactic.

There aren’t really analogous situations with other fundamental freedoms out there. There aren’t really any serious well funded groups that are dedicated to the elimination of free speech, for instance. But if there were - they might do things like, for instance, not letting a neo-nazi book be published. They could muster up some support from the public because some people will agree with their cause. And yet the ACLU and other defenders of free speech will rightfully oppose this. And proponents of an anti-free speech organization might view these people similar to the way you view gun advocates - so extreme that they’d defend even a neo-nazi’s book! But it’s the principle of the thing - infringement of freedoms even when they’re distasteful is still an attack on that freedom, and can lead to further attacks.

Gun rights advocates feel a fundamnetal human right is under assault and they’ll fight tooth and nail for it. Anyone pushing for that agenda should be viewed with skepticism as to their motivations, and the larger implications of such a decision should be analyzed.

I don’t doubt that there’s some happy middle ground that you’d be willing to reach where you logically viewed the rights vs costs issue to be in balance. But you are in the very small minority of advocates of gun control.

322

We don’t have to show that it would be anything more than a minor inconvenience to us.

The fact that it effects us at all, and is an infringement on our rights is reason enough not to do it.

Yes, it’s pretty much impossible without radically redesigning the entire firearm.

Between the first and last shot, there’s often more time than between the last shot and new magazine.

You mean like in a home defense situation where someones life is on the line?

Oh, hi Mr. Homeowner, you could defend yourself to the best of societies abilities, but you cannot because Whack-a-Mole believes that it would not be beneficial enough for you to have these means at your disposal.

Frankly, I cannot see them at all from where I’m located – that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Gang bangers will get drum magazines manufactured, it’s not difficult. I know one person who makes his own magazines out of scrap materials he gets from work. They’re very reliable, and dirt cheep. I’m sure gangbangers know at least someone with the ability to bend metal.

323

Your rights do not factor in with high capacity magazines any more than they do when I choose stemware or tupperware to drink my tea out of.

324

And you make making magazines in your garage completely illegal?

325

You say that as if the restrictions should be obvious, and we’re denying the truth in front of our eyes.

Thanks… I’m aware.

Or one that could get you killed, in a home defense situation.

Ah hah!

We don’t have to put forth a ‘convincing, realistic and likely to happen with some regularity argument’ in order to preserve our rights. You have to put forth a convincing, factually based (not ‘gangbangers probably,’) argument as to why citizens should surrender their rights.

Personally, I don’t see any benefit to it.

I do love GD. :smiley:

326

I would actually refer to them as “trained professionals.”

327

But you get my point. Small truckload of bullets downrange to kill someone. Maybe two, five hits, but 20-40 shots.

328

If you don’t hit someone in the Central Nervous System, you could hit them a ridiculously large number of times before you put them down.

Even Organ Shots aren’t sure stoppers.

329

And part of the point of second amendment prohibitions is that sometimes law enforcement are the bad guys. This is why We did not, and do not, grant the government a legitimate authority to induce a power imbalance between itself and The People.

330

I’ve limited it for your benefit. If I hadnt, you’d simply have used the standard gun advocate arguments and allowed me to have my nukes. Since even most of you guys would think its insane for regular people to have nukes, I’ve simply challenged you to come up with a better argument. But sure, use those points. You believe people should have the right to guns and nukes for protection?

Yes, it sums up my argument. Perhaps you’d like to reply to it specifically instead of posting something non-sequitor and assuming that its “impossible” to ban guns, not to mention stupid. I’m trying to argue in good faith here and a bunch of people who find this particular topic emotionally charged seems to trying to throw shit around and hide behind the 2nd Amendment

As for only criminals having guns, I believe thats been addressed. You might as well say the same thing about drugs, murder, or bribery

And seriously, dont question my value for my life simply because I dont agree with your choice of firearm

Hunters do not need assault weapons. First, hunting elephants and rhinos are illegal. Second, there are none in America. And the fact that some people may be collectors does not mean what they are collecting should be legal. What if I wanted to collect human remains? Is is ok if I start graverobbing? “But officer, I’m a collector!”

I think its completely within the government’s right and power to decide what you do or do not need when it comes to affect other people. Every regulation on anything is the government telling you that you cant do something or how to do it and you’ll find it a small population who thinks they dont have that right

Oh, you know that for sure now? Nobody will be deterred if you strap bombs to your body and threaten to detonate it? I think you like to assume things a lot and pretend they are fact when they are completely up for debate. I used nukes as an extreme example, but it is essentially no different in spirit than small explosives, or firearms. Maybe you say I cant shoot a bomb towards a person, and then I’ll say I can still chuck a grenade in your direction. Besides, I can certainly imagine that if a criminal had a nuke or a bomb strapped to his chest, the police will be much less likely to engage him in a firefight than if he had a pistol

331

Hey I was simply replying to the burlap sack analogy, dumb as it was. Maybe it shouldnt have been raised in the first place

Thats because I do not see it being under credible threat. I view it in the same way as those who, like the above example, seek to ban some books but feel their own are not in any way, shape, or form under attack. One does not have to slide completely down the slope in order to make an argument for stopping after a few feet.

You can try certainly, though you’d hardly get anywhere claiming a burger or a cigar presents more immediate danger than a gun. What you consider its logical conclusion certainly seems to be hitting a snag since we already have schools that ban junk food, cities placing limits on new junk food restaurants, and federal warnings on alcohol and tobacco products. You are free to see that as a precursor to banning guns, but just because you think thats where its going doesnt mean it will, and it doesnt mean that regulations that exist as they are now are bad

Yes, I am a potential rapist, just as you are, and everyone else here. I made that point because it seems only gun adovocates are allowed to say “just because a few are bad doesnt mean all are” and the rest of us are not allowed to say “just because a few regulations/bans are in place doesnt mean all are”. A little intellectual honesty here, would you please?

While my preference is to have no guns at all, I do not believe that Obama’s new assault weapons ban is a bad thing, and certainly I do not agree that it would lead to a ban on all guns and, according to some here, apparently the banning of all self defense. The assault weapon ban is good and should be a permanent law. That doesnt mean it will lead to a gun ban

Get out of it that easily? Are you implying some kind of subterfuge on my part? As I said already, the old law had specific weapons defined to be banned and I’m sure that new lawmakers will update it as necessary. Did you read all thousand pages of the stimulus package before you decided to be for or against it? Then dont pretend that your comment was anything else than trying to get me stuck in some point by point nuance on bullet calibers, cartridge sizes, and rate of fire. I’m for an assault weapon ban based on the generally known definition of such weapons. I trust that lawmakers will specify the exact firearms in the bill

As for why civilians shouldnt have them, I’ve already mentioned that. Danger and non-necessity is the most important criteria

Oh, fuck me for trying to inject some light-heartedness into this conversation. But sure, yes, no muskets either. Happy now? Or muskets for everyone! Better?

My answer is an unequivocal “That depends” :wink:

Got it. Dont debate with people you dont agree with, just declare the battle won and move on.

Hey guys, I guess I win this argument. Better not debate me anymore! :smiley:

332

You really have no idea what an “assault weapon” is, do you? I’ve said this before I think, but it’s more impressive if you have an understanding of the topic you are debating.

I’m not just being a jerk here, that statement makes no sense whatsoever. Would you support the banning of alcoholic beverages because digital TV is coming? Yes, that’s how much sense it makes.

Really, I implore you, if nothing else comes out of this thread, please go learn something about the devices you detest so much

333

But isn’t the circular logic just awesome?

You don’t need “assault weapons” because they’re dangerous. And assault weapons are defined as whatever the government says they are, even if they’re not actually any more dangerous than “non-assault weapons”. But they’re more dangerous because the government says they are.

Gotta outlaw “the thing that goes up”.

334

It’s actually a shoulder thing that goes up.

Yes, I am amused when someone describes an assault weapon as something you’d kill a rhino with. Apparently they’re so dangerous because they’re low powered enough to be controllable in rapid fire, yet powerful enough to down a rhino at 500 yards. Their abilty to break the laws of physics is too dangerous to have in the hands of the public.

335

That’s good, because there are almost no firearms categorized as “Assault Weapons” which would kill an Elephant or Rhino.

The AWB is, by definition a Gun Ban.

I’m going to ask for a cite on “The AWB is good.” Because according to the Justice Department, it didn’t effect crime rates – at all.

There is no Generally known definition!

It’s a made up word with an arbitrary definition.

They pose no more danger than any other firearm. Why? Because there’s nothing different about them than any other firearm, it’s all based on looks!

336

Pachiderms with an “assault weapon”? It is to laugh!

You realize of course that the two most common assault rifle (I still have no freaking idea what an “assault weapon” is) rounds are the .223 Remington used in M-16 and similar guns, and the 7.62x39mm used in AK-47s. Neither are powerful enough to make good big game hunting calibres…maybe for whitetale deer, but not for mule deer, and certainly not elk, moose, bear etc. These calibres are not designed to kill…they are designed to wound a soldier and tie up enemy’s medical infrastructure dealing with that wound.

An AK-47 isn’t an elephant gun…hell it isn’t even a deer rifle. Javalina and coyotes are the size critters it is sufficient to deal with.

337

Pachiderms with an “assault weapon”?

You realize of course that the two most common assault rifle (I still have no freaking idea what an “assault weapon” is) rounds are the .223 Remington used in M-16 and similar guns, and the 7.62x39mm used in AK-47s. Neither are powerful enough to make good big game hunting calibres…maybe for whitetale deer, but not for mule deer, and certainly not elk, moose, bear etc. These calibres are not designed to kill…they are designed to wound a soldier and tie up enemie’s medical infrastructure dealing with that wound.

An AK-47 isn’t an elephant gun…hell it isn’t even a deer rifle. Javalina and coyotes are the size critters it is sufficient to deal with. As for AR-15’s they are most suitable for shooting prarie dogs.

338

I know of one case that an AR-15 saved a young girls life. (On the topic of ‘need’.)

Back in Ohio, there was a group of dogs that had been raiding garbage, and on one occasion, maimed a child. A girl was out playing in her back yard, she yelled, her dad ran to the window and saw the dogs in the other corner of the yard.

He grabbed his gun (A Semi automatic, box fed .223 rifle, An AR15) and shot them through the screen on the window.

Had it been a bolt action rifle, he wouldn’t have been able to reload quickly enough. Had it been a pistol, he wouldn’t have been able to hit them.

Considering these guns aren’t used by criminals, and you now know of at least one scenario in which they’re good for defending a persons children, so, I ask this, won’t you think of the children?

339

I once shot an elephant in my pajamas.
If he’d had the safety off on his assault weapon, I’d never have gotten the drop on him though.

340

Here’s where the advocates for gun-control get childish in their arguement.

“Well, if you can have a gun, then I can have a bomb. Nyaaa, nyaaa, nyaaa.”

This particular argument is as asinine as the one that compares the so-called acceptable regulation of speech within the First Amendment, with the acceptable regulation of firearms in the Second Amendment.

It goes like this:

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, but it is regulated to the extent that one can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

Well, you can yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, there just has to be a fire.

See, it is not free speech that is being regulated, it is the endangerment of innocent civilians that is being regulated.

The same regulations already exist pertaining to firearms ownership. While one has the right to own a firearm, that firearm owner is regulated to the extent that he is prohibited from aiming that firearm at an innocent civilian. He is prohibited from endangering a innocent civilian.

But, just as there are times that there is a fire in a crowded theater, there are times when it is not only permissible, but necessary to aim a firearm at another person.

Now, as for the “Well, I can have a bomb” argument, we, again, have to take endangerment into consideration.

Due to “blast radius”, a bomb’s ability to be aimed is restricted to such a degree that innocent civilians are endangered.