The New Assault Weapons Ban

Great Debates
201

[QUOTE=Erasmus Darwin]
It also prevents the time-honored tradition of taking a friend to the range, running over the safety rules and procedures a number of times before shooting, and then keeping an eye on them as they do some shooting.
[/QUOTE]

Nah. They would still be able to do this. The course and certification would be required to purchase and to own firearms. It wouldn’t be a requirement to touch one or to shoot one.
Just like the current regulations for machineguns. If I own one, I can take all my friends out to the range or wherever and let them all shoot it. They’re not illegally possessing a machinegun if the lawful owner is present. A person doesn’t have to jump through all the hoops just to shoot one with his friend. Only to buy it and to legally own it.

202

How are you going to stretch “Keep your booger hook off the bang switch” to 8 hours? :slight_smile:

203

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Well, I think the Founding Fathers were probably in that group. Isn’t the purpose of the Second Amendment really ultimately about limiting government’s power and putting more power into the hands of civilians?
[/quote]
Yes, probably, though they had a pretty reasonable position considering they were somewhat involved in an actual revolution against the government. And I would tend to say the Second Amendment is about putting more power into the hands of militiamen, but certainly it’s about less power to the government.

I’m really not certain that I would compare the current-day U.S. and those two countries so closely, to be honest. The conditions that created those regimes aren’t exactly present for you guys at the moment. And both actually had reasonable gun ownership laws at the time, IIRC, so perhaps another route other than arming is a superior method of getting the government to stop.

My exact point - those that fear being killed by their government and so keep guns are the ones who are the more fearful.

204

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And both actually had reasonable gun ownership laws at the time, IIRC, so perhaps another route other than arming is a superior method of getting the government to stop.
[/QUOTE]

Ahem.

From http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

205

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Basically. Although I think the restrictions we have right now - background checks at gun stores - are pretty much fine.

If they close the “gun show loophole,” they’re not going to just be happy with that and stop. They’ll view it as a great victory on the path to more gun control restrictions and it will increase the morale of the anti-gun movement to go ahead and push more legislation, which will happily be signed by Mr. Change.

[/QUOTE]

See…I think this is a real problem and prevents even rational restrictions from ever getting on the books. I know there is disagreement even on what a rational restriction would be in many cases but this stops you before you even get started on the discussion.

Slippery slope? Maybe. Certainly there will always be some people out there who want to see all guns gone, period. And they will get there anyway they can including nickle-and-dimeing gun owners to death.

But then that is true for many things. If some chemical plant is dumping poisonous crud into your water supply would you find it legitimate for them to say, “We cannot abide any discussion on any regulation because once you start you won’t stop till we are out of business.”? Somehow I doubt you’d be ok with that response from them.

Fortunately for gun owners they have more protection than a smoker by virtue of a Constitutional protection. Smokers also lost out because they were in no way organized like the NRA and others to defend themselves.

In the end I would find gun owners cries of awful libruls trying to grab their guns a lot more compelling if they had agreed to reasonable restrictions, sans absurd loopholes that they themselves often ensured were put in, in the first place.

206

[QUOTE=Grumman]
Ahem.
[/quote]
The 1938 Act, I note, by which time the bodies had already beginning to pile up. Certainly as time went on gun ownership law became much more strict and obviously much more discriminatory.

On the other hand, I didn’t know that gun laws had gotten that discriminatory that early, so this is a fair point. They clearly weren’t all that reasonable.

207

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Yes, probably, though they had a pretty reasonable position considering they were somewhat involved in an actual revolution against the government. And I would tend to say the Second Amendment is about putting more power into the hands of militiamen, but certainly it’s about less power to the government. I’m really not certain that I would compare the current-day U.S. and those two countries so closely, to be honest. The conditions that created those regimes aren’t exactly present for you guys at the moment. And both actually had reasonable gun ownership laws at the time, IIRC, so perhaps another route other than arming is a superior method of getting the government to stop. My exact point - those that fear being killed by their government and so keep guns are the ones who are the more fearful.
[/QUOTE]

I see the 2nd as a way to keep guns because we had a citizen army. Therefore the term militia. They were the ones who fought off the Brits in the Revolution . It seems a huge stretch to say it was to protect us from our own little government. Bush and co. make me feel that that definition would have more traction today.
Back then guns helped feed the family. they had a real use.

208

[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
How are you going to stretch “Keep your booger hook off the bang switch” to 8 hours? :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Rifle Shooting Merit Badge is usually covered in 5 hours at Boy Scout Summer Camp (using .22 bolt action rifles):

http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Rifle_Shooting

209

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
The 1938 Act, I note, by which time the bodies had already beginning to pile up. Certainly as time went on gun ownership law became much more strict and obviously much more discriminatory. On the other hand, I didn’t know that gun laws had gotten that discriminatory that early, so this is a fair point. They clearly weren’t all that reasonable.
[/QUOTE]

Did Hitler ban gun ownership?, from Straight Dope Mailbag.

210

[QUOTE=Erasmus Darwin]
I almost agreed to this, but then I couldn’t help but think that this would be a ban through attrition. The requirements are nothing for someone who’s already interested in firearms, but over time, I suspect less and less people will bother. It also prevents the time-honored tradition of taking a friend to the range, running over the safety rules and procedures a number of times before shooting, and then keeping an eye on them as they do some shooting. Until they realize how fun it is, they’re a lot less likely to sit through an 8 hour course.
[/QUOTE]

You know, you’re right. I hadn’t thought about that. I guess I hadn’t really read the “use … borrow, rent” part fully. I certainly would not support any such measure. It would be patently absurd to say that nobody would be allowed to take a newbie friend shooting, or to teach their children how to shoot. It would seriously hurt the business of shooting ranges, too, many of which make a good deal of money by renting to people who may not own any guns themselves, but enjoy shooting recreationally. That would be like making it illegal to rent a ball at a bowling alley. :dubious:

And for that matter, while I wouldn’t strenuously object to the lessened restrictions (on only purchase and ownership), I still think I would challenge their necessity. What would be the benefit of such a program? Accidental gun deaths are few in number, and in any case I doubt very much that a lowest-common-denominator safety crash course will do much to reduce them.

But of course it was a fantasy scenario to begin with. There’s no way to actually guarantee that such a system would always be open and fair, and never used as a basis for prejudicial or capricious denial of peoples’ rights, or as a stepping stone towards more control, so in practice I would always oppose such a measure.

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
In the end I would find gun owners cries of awful libruls trying to grab their guns a lot more compelling if they had agreed to reasonable restrictions, sans absurd loopholes that they themselves often ensured were put in, in the first place.
[/QUOTE]

I would say that we have allowed reasonable restrictions. Felons and the insane are prohibited from possessing guns, and to help enforce this, every transaction with a licensed dealer must first be cleared through a NICS background check. The only “loophole” there is the simple fact that private sales cannot be so regulated. Even if you wanted to, there’s no mechanism for accountability like there is with FFLs. And it’s already illegal to sell to anyone you have reason to believe falls under the prohibitions, so the criminals would just keep on privately transferring their guns regardless of any restrictions you put on private sales.

That’s not a loophole; that’s reality.

211

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Ye-ah, in a return to some sanity here, let me ask a rhetorical question of pro-gun folks.

It’s Una World, where some things can be guaranteed absolutely. A proposal is up to mandate that no one may own, possess, use, buy, borrow, rent, or sell a gun unless they have attended and passed an 8-hour firearms safety and usage class. In this perfect world, this proposal is not part of a slippery slope and is independent of any other gun control proposals which are floated. The class costs a modest fee ($50) but with free classes available for low-income folks. This is a one-time class, but with 2-hour refresher courses every 5 years. No gun registration is involved, although all who pass the course must carry a card stating they have passed the training if they possess a weapon on them at the time.

Are you opposed to, or in favour of, this scheme? And IYO, would it pass Constitutional muster under the current Supreme Court? My answers are “in favour” and “yes.”
[/QUOTE]
I’m on the fence about this. If you only have to take a safety course for the purchase of new guns…..once… perhaps. And if it’s OK to let a friend or family shoot under your ‘creds’ while you are there as the gun owner.

I own 8 guns. Every one was handed down to me. I have never purchased a gun.

I’ve been shooting for 39 years. All of my shooting has been done on private property except once at an indoor range.

You do have to go through a hunter safety course to get a hunting license in Colorado. That seems to work out OK (I’m not a hunter, and have not done the course).

I am shy of the idea of a blanket law that could force any gun owner to go through a safety course to legally own a gun.

I’m a programmer by trade (for the GOV), and a simple liberal guy. Databases are easily (and often) traded between different agencies, and I don’t particularly want my name out there as a gun owner.

I have cousin that I love dearly. We agree about just about everything. But, in a conversation with her I discovered how rabidly she was against gun ownership of any kind. It was clear that she knew nothing about guns (real clear). She continued to bring up “holes on the side of the barrel” as a problem. I suspect that she was talking about a barrel shroud on something she saw in an action movie.

:sigh:

And so it goes.

My Wife is not a shooter. Though she has tried. She doesn’t like shooting. That’s fine. Just as she is fine that I am a shooter.
Guns exist. They are somewhat simple mechanical devices. I like them. I like the purity of them. The action and the tolerances. I do enjoy using a well made machine.

(I’m the same way about a good hammer or tool of any kind)

212

By God, a good, heavy, solid framing hammer is really a thing of beauty.

The feeling of getting a perfect strike on a nail is like that satisfying “pop” sound when you’ve hit the sweet spot of a tennis ball.

Anyway, action movies are paradoxical in their relationship to guns. On the one hand, they probably went a long way in popularizing the AR-15 as a civilian weapon, and on the other hand, they seem to feed a lot of gun misinformation and fear to people. Many folks seem to only know what they know about guns, from action movies, and this isn’t a good thing. A lot of movies are just non-stop violence and shooting, with hundreds of guys just shooting and getting shot and killed, and millions of bullets being sprayed everywhere with no thought as to where they are going.

Precision marksmanship - which as far as I am concerned is the only kind - is very rarely depicted in movies.

213

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
By God, a good, heavy, solid framing hammer is really a thing of beauty.

The feeling of getting a perfect strike on a nail is like that satisfying “pop” sound when you’ve hit the sweet spot of a tennis ball.

Anyway, action movies are paradoxical in their relationship to guns. On the one hand, they probably went a long way in popularizing the AR-15 as a civilian weapon, and on the other hand, they seem to feed a lot of gun misinformation and fear to people. Many folks seem to only know what they know about guns, from action movies, and this isn’t a good thing. A lot of movies are just non-stop violence and shooting, with hundreds of guys just shooting and getting shot and killed, and millions of bullets being sprayed everywhere with no thought as to where they are going.

Precision marksmanship - which as far as I am concerned is the only kind - is very rarely depicted in movies.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, I prefer The Rig Builder’s Hatchet by Vaughn. And then a 20oz backup with a straight claw.

The axe has a better balance. With all the weight going over the head. And the axe is 3 and a half inches wide, and the hammer face is 1.5 wide. The size of a 2x4. Someone was thinking.

The axe part is good for quick ‘tune ups’. Or breaking apart a bunk of lumber. The long handle is great for framing.

Like a good hammer, I can appreciate a well made gun.

214

Regarding Republican vs. Democrat support for gun control:

While the 2007 Assault Weapons Ban bill has only garnered support from Democrats so far, the more restrictive 2008 bill is sponsored and cosponsored by Republicans. Party affiliation seems to be a poor indicator of the politician’s stance on gun control, especially lately. I wouldn’t take a candidate’s position for granted based on whether they were Republicans or Democrats. I’d have to see a clearly stated position directly from the person.

215

[QUOTE=Sleel]
…Party affiliation seems to be a poor indicator of the politician’s stance on gun control, especially lately…
[/QUOTE]

Considering the Republicans had several years of complete power to roll back any gun control legislation, I agree completely. Lip service was paid to gun owners by allowing the AW ban to expire in 2004. That was about it. To think otherwise is not wise.

216

But like I’ve already said, what, 50 times, that bill is co-sponsored by only three Republicans, all from very liberal areas.

Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R, NJ-7]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R, CT-4]

Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida? Those people are not representative of the overall Republican position.

That’s nothing compared to the laundry list of Democrats sponsoring the first AWB that was signed under a Democrat president.

Who’s most likely going to be the president? Mr. Change. Change this, change that, change everything. And when this lands on his desk, he’ll be signing it so fast that his pen will catch fire. He already made his positions on guns clear with his voting record in the Senate - no semi-autos, no handguns, no “assault weapons” - we’re left with bolt-action hunting rifles. Which are very elegant firearms, no doubt - but fuck those narrow restrictions. The Second Amendment says no infringement.

Compare that to McCain who has explicitly stated that he supports no infringement on the 2nd Amendment whatsoever.

217

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
… In the end I would find gun owners cries of awful libruls trying to grab their guns a lot more compelling if they had agreed to reasonable restrictions, sans absurd loopholes that they themselves often ensured were put in, in the first place.
[/QUOTE]

Well, there is the rub. Many on my side of the argument feel that plenty of reasonable and many not so reasonable restrictions have been put in place since 1934.

Prior to 1968, one could order a gun through the mail. A reasonable restriction was put in place to stop that practice. Few would argue against it today.

To insure a paper trail is kept on new gun sales, the FFL license and corresponding 4473 form and later NICS checks were all implemented. Most gun owners would begrudgingly agree that these were reasonable restrictions.

Short of forcing ALL sales of firearms to go through licensed dealers, I fail to see how many more reasonable controls can really be enacted. I haven’t seen any in this thread, that would do anything other than to hassle those who follow the law.

I would find the cries of those same awful libruls wanting ban those nasty assault weapons much more seriously if they could prove that those evil black rifles were used to significant degree relating to the gun crimes committed in this country.

218

[QUOTE=JXJohns]
Short of forcing ALL sales of firearms to go through licensed dealers, I fail to see how many more reasonable controls can really be enacted. I haven’t seen any in this thread, that would do anything other than to hassle those who follow the law.

[/QUOTE]
Why do you feel that a safety/user course would be a hassle to gun owners? It doesn’t seem to be such a hassle for motorcycles owners, hunters, scuba divers, etc.
Just curious.

219

Some people are against anyone being registered as a gun owner in any kind of government database. If everyone who was a gun owner had to take that class, then the lists of everyone who ever took the class would presumably be recorded in some kind of official database, and that - for some - would mean a “gun registry.” I’m not presuming to speak for those who oppose that kind of class but I think maybe that’s the reasoning behind it.

Some believe that any firearms registry in the government’s hands would allow them to “go door to door and confiscate everyone’s guns.”

I’m not really on that level, I’m just trying to explain those who are.

220

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
Why do you feel that a safety/user course would be a hassle to gun owners? It doesn’t seem to be such a hassle for motorcycles owners, hunters, scuba divers, etc.
Just curious.
[/QUOTE]

I can take my SCUBA lessons from hundreds of local, private instructors. It is not a government license, and therefore it responds to market conditions.

For motorcycles, you just have to pass a short riding and written test (in California at least). Once you pass, you can ride anywhere on anything. If you only want to use a dirt bike on private property, you don’t even need a license.

In California, I can take the pre-test materials to hunt online. I can then take my hunting safety course from a variety of private gun clubs, gun shops and public ranges. Based on a cursory glance, there are plenty of opportunities as well.

If you were to make a proposed bit of legislation for a firearms license, to keep it equivalent:

  1. Once you have the license, you can buy any gun that you want. You only have to register the gun if you are going to use it on public lands.
  2. The license can be granted by any private organizations who qualify. FYI, 99% of the time it would probably be taught by NRA instructors.