All the guns are essentially the same. Magazine, trigger, dangerous end.
The AWB simply targets ‘scary-looking’ guns. So get a wood stock and doctor it up a bit, and any ‘Assault Weapon’ becomes a friendly hunting rifle, assuming you don’t stick in a big banana or drum clip.
I don’t think that any test of ‘usefulness’ works. Hunting is mainly a sport unless you are snowed in living in a remote part of Alaska 3/4 of the year.
Saying a gun is ‘useful’ for hunting or not is by in large like arguing whether a baseall bat is useful for playing baseball. If you need to make a hole in some clueless animal from a long way off, almost any rifle will do.
I’m all for killing people who commit crimes with firearms. Actually swift capital punishment for ALL kinds of violent creeps after a single fair trial. No appeals. Sure, some people will die ‘unjustly’, but at least they won’t die in prison after being ass-raped for 50 years. Philosophically, capital punishment is ‘no appeal’ by its very nature. Putting off a sentence for decades while executing infinite appeals at taxpayer expense isn’t exactly sending the right message, nor are sub-lifetime sentences for violent offenders such as murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc.
A child rapist may as well murder every victim as messily as possible under the current system of so-called ‘justice’. Their chances of long-term survival in prison are very good once they receive a capital sentence. They get a private cell with extra guards for decades while their appeals run out. Special treatment. In the general prison population, they would last days to weeks.
It’s great to have all the gun people together in one thread, but really - this is just preaching to the choir. I want some of the ‘antis’ from that thread that was 86’ed to come back in here and try to debate, dammit. I dare you.
And Argent Towers - I said you have an axe to grind because you clearly do, both from your rhetoric in this thread and in the other one. Deny it if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me.
So how about this:
Any semi-automatic weapon with a magazine capacity larger than 6 must satisfy the same requirements as a fully-automatic weapon for ownership.
You who want ‘assault weapons’ can still have them; and the crime statistics say that the people who have automatic weapons rarely (NEVER, apparently) commit crimes.
Not a chance. That limits a large number of rifles and virtually all handguns. Do you have any idea what it takes to purchase an NFA (full-automatic) weapon? What you are suggesting is far more onerous than a poll tax in that one would have to apply via BATFE Form 4, get a CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) approval, and pay a $200 tax simply to purchase a handgun. Given the recent Heller decision, and even if we ignore that Americans have an individual right to own a gun, I not only say no but HELL NO.
The fact that this is being floated, even hypothetically, by someone with no authority whatsoever to make it happen, is scary. What’s scary about it is that there are more of you out there, some of whom do have some clout.
Good god. If that were the case, I would need to submit to a rigorous background check and federal registration, pay $200 for a tax stamp, and get permission from a local police chief to be allowed to buy an M1911 pistol. Oh, and if it was made after 1986, I wouldn’t be allowed to buy it at all. No thanks.
I think it’s fine the way it is: if I want to buy an AR15, I go to the sporting goods store, sign a form that says I’m not a felon, wait a minute for the NICS check, hand the guy behind the counter a bunch of money, and walk out the door with my rifle. Honestly, if I had my way, I’d dispense with the NICS check too (and the whole BATFE while we’re at it), but it’s not a huge gripe.
If anything, we need to start rolling back federal gun control laws. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government doesn’t even really have jurisdiction here anyway: all such laws currently in effect are tortuous abuses of the commerce clause.
I do have some idea what it takes to get an automatic weapon, from discussions here, and from your description. And I’ve said before and will say again - I do support the right to keep and bear arms, even if I am for control of some guns.
And where does the Constitution or the Heller ruling say that right to own guns includes every gun manufactured anywhere? And since apparently it does, when can I start buying grenade launchers? They’re single shot, so why not?
If you are in agreement with Argent Towers that the only people effected by the AWB will be law-abiding collectors, then what’s the big deal for collectors and enthusiasts having to pay a one-off tax and get some additional checks and approvals from local law enforcement before they can buy as many of these types of guns as they want?
My proposal isn’t stopping Americans from owning guns, and isn’t even stopping those who want to from buying military-style weapons if they’re willing to submit to an additional level of checks and a small tax, but simply stopping the general public from owning hi-capacity magazines. Which isn’t such a bad thing to my mind, with school and workplace shootings and the like having such high body counts because people can buy hi-cap magazines. Our recent church shooter had a three-shot mag; this meant only 2 people were killed and the guy was tackled when he ran out of ammo.
And wouldn’t gun manufacturers do exactly the same thing they did with magazines during the AWB the last time around and simple make smaller magazines for existing weapons?
I know from hunting in Montana that there are restrictions on hunting weapons - 3 shots for shotguns for birds and 5 for rifles for big game - for local hunters anyways, which I think is pretty common for hunting in most states. Home defense people can still buy shotguns and revolvers, or semi-auto pistols with smaller capacity magazines. And don’t try to tell me that you need a high-capacity magazine to defend against tyranny - I’ll use the example of arguably the most proficient sniper of all time (Carlos Hathcock) using a bolt-action Winchester model 70 in 30-06 with a 5-round internal magazine for hundreds of combat kills.
Stealth Potato - I never said anything about weapons made after 1986; I assume you’re getting that from the current AWB which I agree is both cosmetic and ineffective. And as for your classic M1911 pistol, I’m not banning the gun, I’m banning making and selling hi-capacity magazines. It’s not an insurmountable engineering exercise to make a magazine with 3 fewer rounds for Mr M1911 to give you 5 in the mag and 1 in the pipe.
So what’s with the need for hi-capacity magazines to defend freedom?
A couple of questions from someone who lives where guns are not the norm.
Why would you want a weapon with this capability? Do you go hunting with it, shoot at ranges with it, are there sports for it? Is it purely for show?
Defend against Tyranny. What tyranny do you see forthcoming that you should not be denied the right to these weapons? Where do you draw the line and should you be allowed any weapons as right in order to defend yourself against tyranny?
No, it isn’t true, not in the UK, anyway. Britons have not been able to own guns for self defence for ages. The last ban on guns, in the late nineties, was banning sport shooters from possessing handguns, after one of their kind went berserk and shot up a Primary School.
Since then, crime has gone up, but the two are unrelated.
Obviously, I’m not Argent Towers, but the most common defense of the 2nd Amendment is that the Amendment was intended not to allow people to hunt but to give the populace the weapons required to defend against any encroachment of their individual rights. Constitutional scholars say that the two most important amendments are the 1st (free speech) and the 2nd (bear arms) because if talking about encroached liberties isn’t enough, the people should be able to fight for their rights. According to hard-core gun rights people, all guns should be allowed because to disarm the populace is to basically roll over for whatever tyrant comes walking along. And as Argent mentions above, handicapping the populace by giving them less powerful weapons just means that tyrants have an easier go of it.
It basically boils down to many Conservatives feel that the surest defense against tyranny is an armed populace; many Liberals believe that the surest defense is speech free from all restrictions. Apparently I can piss off both Conservatives and Liberals, because I straddle both of those particular fences.
But what Argent Towers and many other Conservatives neglect to consider is:
[ul]
[li]Our military today is volunteers, and thus highly unlikely to turn against it’s own population. Not like volunteer soldiers from Georgia are gonna come gunning for Georgia grandmothers, no matter what the President or a cabal of hard-core tyrants-to-be say.[/li][li]Our military today is largely supported by state-run national guard units who are nearly as well armed as the Federal active duty soldiers as well as providing vital support functions like supply-train logistics and air transport. So the idea that the Montana Army and Air National Guard are going to turn against Montanans when the Federal government tells them to is equally silly, as well as the fact that the active-duty military will struggle to go operational without the support of the Guard in various ways, and the Guard reports to the Governor of the individual state, not the President (unless they’ve been Federally activated, which the state Governor can refuse to order and the order must come from him / her - witness the delay in ordering the National Guard to mobilize during Katrina in New Orleans. The President couldn’t order the LA National Guard to spit without the Governor’s say-so)[/li][li]The citizens of the US are already incredibly outgunned by the US military with or without an assault weapons ban; it’s not like having an AR15 with 30-round magazines is really going to hold you in good stead against M-4 carbines with grenade launchers, M249 SAW, or M60 GPMG, much less M-1 Abrams, M-2 Bradley, or all of the other myriad front-line hardware advantages available to your average grunt like body armor and night vision. So saying you need a 30-round magazine for your M-16 copy to defend yourself from tyranny is an intellectual wank-job of the highest order already. Ask the Ruby Ridge folks how well they did against the US government, and remember they were heavily armed, some of them were highly trained, and they were totally isolated in a mountain cabin. And that wasn’t even the Army.[/li][/ul]
It’s not a one-off tax. It’s a check, tax, and permission procedure for every single time every individual gun subject to the restrictions is transferred.
As was mentioned in a YouTube video somebody linked to earlier: it takes about a second to swap out a magazine. Seung-Hui Cho had a backpack full of magazines - he was prepared to reload over and over again, and was able to do so. What makes you think restricting magazines to 10, or 8, or even 6 rounds is going to make much of a difference? In any case, these mass shootings are sensational rarities; trying to base policy on them is reactionary and short-sighted.
No, that’s part of the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, which you suggested applying to semi-autos having a magazine capacity larger than 6.
Actually, you suggested restrictions on any semiautomatic weapon with a magazine capacity of more than 6 rounds. That basically means every weapon using detachable magazines, since you can always make a larger magazine. Hell, you could even jury rig one with some sheet metal and a spring. They’re not complicated devices.
GomiBoy: So your plan is to restrict 7+ round magazines for semi-automatic weapons? Have you considered that magazines are smaller and easier to hide or smuggle than guns? For that matter, what’s the difference between a 7-round detachable magazine for a semi-automatic rifle and a 7-round detachable magazine for a bolt-action rifle?
You’re right, the volunteer military is unlikely to go after Georgia’s grandmothers, but that is irrelevant: the more important question is whether the volunteer military would go after less popular targets. Could racial or religious minorities, for example, rely on the same restraint that protects Georgia’s grandmothers?
Even though the citizens would lose, that does not mean the military would win. Even if the military could kill every person in the country without a single casualty, it is not worth their time if they don’t gain enough in return to make up for the expenditure of resources.
I would support a one-off; I wouldn’t support a tax for every single gun. Although the tracking of the sale / transfer of hi-capacity weapons (or more specifically magazines) would be a good thing IMO or we’d end up with all kinds of loopholes.
Yes, but if he has only 6 rounds per mag rather than 13, and assuming he fired one round per second, then he would have to spend 1 second out of 7 seconds reloading and at some point is going to have to stop shooting, get into his rucksack, and pull out fresh mags. That’s a lot more than a second, when someone could stop him and / or escape themselves.
Of course mass shootings are sensational, but I disagree they are rarities. Seems to me that there have been 4 or 5 in the last couple of year that I’ve heard about. Montreal Illinois Seattle Omaha and others
As well as a whole raft in 1998-2001 which was about when the first AWB came into play IIRC… so it seems to me that the first AWB achieved a little bit of something.
Then again, we could change it. I was more referring to the background checks than specific laws banning types of weapons.
Yes - restrictions on the ownership of those weapons to people who had to pass a more stringent background check based on magazine size. But the point being, an illegal magazine used to commit a crime would carry a stiffer penalty. So if you didn’t pass the background check, bought a legal 1911, but used an illegal home-made 8-round mag instead of a legal 5-round mag during an offense, you’d have to spend a bit more time behind bars.
Plan’s a bit strong; perhaps idea would be better. Plan infers I’m going to start writing my Congressman (who I don’t actually have one of, living in England as I do) or start writing draft legislation. I won’t be doing either; I was just wanting a bit of debate.
Yes. I would think severely restricting detachable magazines would be better. Internal magazines would be restricted to 5 rounds (like most shotguns and hunting rifles already are). And I know it would be nearly impossible to stop illegal trading of the large-cap mags, but it would add penalties to the criminal charges faced for using an illegal mag.
Racial or religious minorities are not the ones wanting to be heavily armed, so I think your argument is a bit moot.
Yes, and so this would seem to bolster my original point as the type of military tyranny some gun rights advocates seem to fear is that much more far-fetched.
A weapon that’s covered under the AWB? I’ll take a typical carbine rifle, which are usually one of the focal points of the ban. Yes, some people do hunt with carbines (aside from increased magazine capacity, they’re pretty much the same as long rifles). There are also various shooting sports and competitions people use them for.
Basically, our Constitution guarantees its citizens access to firearms because the country’s founding fathers were concerned about the government growing too powerful and the option of a forceful (perhaps even violent) revolution always being on the table to protect our freedoms. Now personally, I don’t see this as happening today since the military’s arsenol will always be greater, but I guess the option is still there. Where would I personally draw the line? I’d say the regulations are decent as-is without the AWB. The National Firearms Act of 1934 has done a good job of regulating the truly destructive weapons – the machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. The AWB essentially put semi-automatic guns that “look” dangerous or look like their military cousins in the illegal category. :dubious:
Rather than explaining why I want/need these weapons of mass destruction, please explain why they specifically should be more heavily regulated. Increased regulation does not result in less crime, these are not the weapons of choice of most criminals (sure, a few high-profile crimes have been committed, but those are exceptions).
Hi-cap mags… again, most shootings are not going to be changed by a punk thug only having 6 shots. Gang shootings and domestic disputes account for a fairly large percentage of gun crimes IIRC. I seriously doubt any drugged up little gang-banger is going to decide not to plug his mule because he can only shoot him 7 instead of 16 times.
Anyway, my point was supposed to be - Justify a ban or regulation before asking someone to justify that which you are trying to ban or regulate. Why do I have an AR15 with multiple high capacity magazines? The same reason I have a car that gets 35 miles per gallon.
You know what this whole thing is all about? (And this is what got the whole thread closed last time, because I used the word “stupid”) It’s about people trying to control something that they don’t know anything about.
I would use the example of bible-thumpers trying to regulate what people can and cannot do in their own bedrooms - but more and more it seems like those guys know more about anal sex than you’d think, so that analogy doesn’t work too well these days.
I need to watch what I say here, especially since even some of the gun people here don’t buy the “defense against the government” argument. For the record, I too think it’s pretty unlikely - the main reason I like guns is because they’re badass things to own, and I am a collector of stuff in general - but…say there was some tyrannical government and we needed to fight back against them…there are some things to consider.
First of all, in the event of a government-against-the-people war, it’s unlikely to be them just bombing the hell out of everyone. What’s the point of that - if they do it, they won’t have any country left to govern. They’re not even doing it in Iraq! It would be street fighting, house to house, and lots of it.
Second - guerrilla warfare involves more than just charging up to the enemy infantry column and opening fire on their APCs with your rifle. Guerrillas do have tactics, you know. In a real war, they would find a way to sneak up on the enemies, ambush them, set traps, et cetera. They’d find a way to make it really hard for them. It worked in Vietnam and Iraq.
