The first AWB started in 1994 and ended in 2004. That puts your 1998-2001 stats dead set in the middle. So it should seem to you that the AWB achieved a little bit of nothing.
Growing up in Montana like I did, I knew the one reason the black helicopters weren’t really going to come, or would fail if they were stupid enough to try, was the number of people with 30-06 rifles, basic bushcraft knowledge (or more than basic in a lot of cases) who knew the ground and knew how to shoot. How hard would any real tyranny have it against those people? And they sure didn’t need 30-round magazines to be a real and meaningful threat.
But I have to give you credit - at least you can admit it. You want these guns because they’re ‘bad ass’. That is something I can actually respect a bit; it’s at least honest. So why would you object to paying a bit of a fee and having an in-depth background check to play with your badass toys?
Over half of the National Guard is Combat Arms–Infantry, Armor, Engineers, etc–over half!! The National Guard is made up of over 350,000 solders in something like two dozen Brigade Combat Teams. The National Guard has 2 Special Forces Groups.
They are equally well armed as the Active Army. Sometimes better so. I believe there are actually even more infantrymen in the National Guard than in the regular active Army. You seem to have a view of the Guard like it is a giant support group. You are mistaking them for Army Reserves–a different thing altogether.
It seems to me to be a question of trust. Some folks don’t trust others, and fear what they might do.
Despite having a clean record, despite me never amounting to much of anything, some folks wouldn’t trust me to own a gun, because they fear what I might do with it.
I see it the same as Una Persson.
Slippery slope, Jack. With every little thing they add, it gives them precedent to make it more of a burden. Bit of a fee? How much? $200? $500? For each weapon? If it’s not for each weapon, eventually they’ll make it for each weapon. That can really add up. In depth background check? They already do that if you buy a gun at a store, and I don’t have a big problem with it honestly. But what next? I’ve been prescribed medication in the past for anxiety disorder - is it going to get to the point where that would get in my way? You were prescribed Xanax or Zoloft three years ago - hold it! Suicide risk! Homicide risk! It could come to that. Every little bit of restrictions - infringement, if you will - chips away a little more at our rights, and brings it closer to that.
Why wouldn’t we? Why should I pay more because politicians don’t understand how firearms work? Government ignorance is costing me enough already.
I’ve paid to be investigated by federal, state, and local agencies and they found no reason to deny me permission to carry a concealed weapon. So what sense does it make to do the exact same thing every time I want to buy a gun that is no more, and possibly much less, dangerous than some of the ones I already own? Hell, the .223 is a plinking round and an AR with M4 stock is an excellent gun for kids. Just like some people lumping the 10/22 in just because it’s a semi-auto…
When major newspapers can not get the definition correct, how can we expect legislators to do it?
Opening sentence of a front-page, above-the-fold, article - and they claim that machine guns are being smuggled to Mexico. When you read the aritcle, you find it is a bunch of rifles (of the civilian version of assault weaponry) variety.
OK, that’s another thing that’s really getting my goat. That goddamned use of the term “high-powered rifle.”
A rifle is not high powered. A rifle isn’t powered. What the fuck is “powered?” The cartridge is what’s powered.
“Assault rifles” are not “high powered” nor do they fire a “high powered” cartridge. The 7.62x39 cartridge is nowhere near high-powered by anyone’s standards (anyone who knows what the hell he’s talking about.) A .30-06, now you’re getting somewhere. A .338 Lapua, other big-game cartridges, those are even higher-powered. A Browning Machine Gun .50 cal, now you’re talking really fucking high powered.
Wow. That’s a heck of an article, Algher.
(Bolding, below, is mine.)
Um… should I be shocked that people actually do what they took the trouble to get a license to do?
I could do the same with a hot dog.
It seems that article was written with some slight bias. 
However, the article mentions (pg 3) that someone bought 112 assault-class rifles, pistols, etc, “over a series of months”. (No idea how many months we are talking here…) Do you need a “dealer” license to make a certain number of purchases within a given jurisdiction, within a given time frame? (I bet it varies from state to state…)
Yes - each state has its own rules on the bulk purchasing of firearms. I assume AZ has no such restrictions. I did appreciate that the article pointed out how some gun dealers notified the Feds on their own - self-policing is what broke the primary smuggler.
It is also interesting how border security came up as well.
But the worst is the incorrect terminology combined with hyperbole in the lead paragraph. It once again shows how articles are written without any fact checking - much like many gun laws. The people who actually KNOW firearms never are involved in writing anti-gun legislation, judging by the results.
If they spent half as much time investigating what comes IN from Mexico as they did with these “assault rifles” going into it, that would cut down on crime way more than any bullshit gun ban. But that’s a topic for a completely different thread.
Ha! That’s some funny stuff. I particularly like -
A major and inexcusable hijack could easily rise from this, so I’ll stop now.
A possible reason for legislation and regulation - it is a weapon. Simple as that. It is something that is designed solely for the purpose of killing something else. Trying to compare it to a mode of transport doesn’t really hold up. Should it be allowed that anyone can legally obtain such a device given its purpose.
Is it not in the best interests of the majority of society to ensure that these weapons are only handled by those people who are knowledgeable enough to use them wisely given that it will be a stupid minority who will ruin it for everyone else and trying to prevent such a tragedy from occuring is better than letting it happen regardless.
However, using your comparison; You take a driving test before driving a car. Should you not do the same to prove you are capable of handling a weapon before being allowed to carry one.
The problem with bans is that the people who tend to obey them are law abiding members of society and not criminals who don’t see why a law should apply to themselves. Would a better solution than a ban be to enforce registration of such weapons and severely increase the penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered weapon?
Driving is not Constitutionally protected.
How about voting? Should you not have to prove that you’re literate before you vote? Until the 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 literacy tests were used to disenfranchise African-Americans. Would you be for a return to literacy tests?
I trust you see the problem with that. Putting a test on a Constitutional right automatically creates people who are excluded, and if the person who administers the test chooses to discriminate on some basis you have the potential for disenfranchising an entire group of their rights.
There are states that require a test to “carry” a weapon. Concealed carry is not (yet) protected by the Constitution, so states can put up any barrier to that they choose to. But they cannot make you take a “test” for permission to own a weapon.
The NICS could be considered a “test”, I suppose, but that is not strictly speaking within the purview of a state. It is a check done by an anonymous salesperson and a bureaucrat who knows nothing about you except what pops up on the screen in front of them, so the possibility of discrimination is greatly reduced. In addition, it’s universal. Everybody is subject to it, not just a specific subset of people.
The problem with gun control is not so much that it isn’t well-intentioned. I’m sure that the people that advocate it have the most noble of reasons for pushing it. But it’s naive at best and outright discriminatory at worst. Given its Constitutional status, it’s important to tread very lightly in that regard. GomiBoy suggested that we treat any semi-automatic weapon with more than 6 rounds as an NFA weapon. That would have the net effect of disenfranchising lower-income people, which will in turn disproportionately affect African-Americans. That’s far too reminiscent of “Jim Crow” to be even remotely acceptable.
Personally, unlike some posters here, I would see unrestricted private ownership of assault guns as a very good defense against government tyranny.
Originally Posted by CatInASuit
*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?*
Nuts to tyranny. I own so called “assault weapons” to protect myself against non-governmental thugs. Especially during times of civil disorder. Had I been in L.A. during the riots or New Orleans during Katrina I would have wanted an AR-15 at the very least.
This is basically untrue. There are many uses besides killin’, in fact my “assault rifles” have never been used to kill anything and are rather poorly designed for killing, in my opinion.
No. It is in the best interest of society to hold criminals responsible for the crimes they commit.
I’ll grudgingly agree that it’s acceptable to require a test of some kind before issuing a concealed carry permit. But I don’t need a license to own an automobile, nor should I need anyones permission to own a gun.
No. Registration doesn’t work and I don’t see how it can be made to work - 250,000,000 guns in circulation in the US. Short of door-to-door raids, they’re not getting registered.
It’s an article of faith amongst many of us that registration leads to confiscation. The government isn’t trustworthy. Look at what has happened over the past 7 years and tell me that you trust those people to do the right thing.
Not rarities? In the last five years or so, these mass shootings have claimed something on the order of a hundred or so lives. I’m just guessing; let’s round it up to two hundred to be safe. Now, let’s add a little perspective. Also in the US in a five-year period:
[ul]
[li] About 500 people in the US were killed by lightning. (cite)[/li][li] 16,924 people drowned. (CDC, data from 2001-2005)[/li][li] About 100,000 people died of alcohol-related causes, excluding accidents and homicides (cite)[/li][li] Almost 240,000 people died in automotive accidents (CDC, data from 2001-2005)[/li][/ul]
About 59,000 people in the United States were murdered with firearms in the five years from 2001 to 2005. Even that is a small number compared to the number of lives claimed by alcohol, tobacco, and highways, but it makes the small subset of “spree shooting” fatalities utterly insignificant. Such killings loom large in our national consciousness only because of their sensational nature. Do you still think such incidents are a rational basis for policy, rather than an emotional one?
The point of which would be? If you’re mainly interested in punishing criminals for using higher-capacity weapons, then why the persistent desire to punish the innocent for even possessing them? You’ve already acknowledged that you can’t stop the criminals from trafficking existing magazines and even manufacturing their own, so what’s the point of your suggested restriction?
I’ll keep saying it again, even though it’s annoying - I want the people from the old thread to get in here, and try to debate this again. I challenge you. Now that this thread is actually on topic and discussing the actual AWB and not a debate over whether gun ownership is appropriate at all, or Europe, or what the hell ever - come back and try to defend your anti-assault-weapon position. See how well it goes.
I thought so.
And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell me why the Democrats wouldn’t try to pursue this renewal of the AWB if Obama gets into the White House? Why, again, is it such a “loser issue” as people keep saying? Why are the Democrats including a renewal of the AWB in their official platform if it is - as so many Democrat apologists insist - a “thing of the past” and “not an issue anymore?” Like I said, they’re just keeping quiet about it, and they’re waiting until they have power again after old Bush’s time is up, and then they’re going to go back to the good old days of Clinton gun policy. What is their incentive not to?