And since no-one is being refused the ownership of a weapon, what’s the problem?
You don’t need a 30-round mag for the right to bear arms, and comparing a vote to owning a gun is apples to oranges of the highest level. Votes don’t kill innocent people.
Argent Towers: I thought the point of this thread was to discuss whether the AWB is valid, not which US political party was behind it.
Airman Doors, USAF: Cars were not around when the Constitution was drawn up. If they were, I’m sure there would be an amendment giving the right to drive cars with low petrol prices. Besides, you may not need a licence to own a car, but you do to use one, don’t you?
However, it also means that you are relying on the interpretation of a 200? year old amendment to justify a modern situation. Can you provide a modern day reason, without referring to the 2nd Amendment, as to why people should be allowed access to these weapons.
And why is preventing someone who cannot read and write from owning a gun such a bad thing?
**Johnny L.A. **: Thanks for the link, it makes interesting reading.
The rule of law in the US is that the government needs to provide a reason to ban something, not that individuals must ask permission to do something. The Bill of Rights protects enumerated rights, it does not limit rights. So the onus is absolutely on us as ‘banners’ to justify why we want something banned rather than on the ‘ban-ee’ because ‘I just want to’ is a perfectly valid argument from a Constitutional Law standpoint.
The problem comes with interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, with people on either side of the debate saying very different things about what it means and the language itself not too much better. As this discussion is a bit off-topic for my OP, I will leave it at that as I’d rather not go down the rathole of discussing the right to keep and bear but focus instead on the AWB.
Argent Towers - a round like .223 is higher power than a .22LR because it’s got more powder in the cartridge and does more damage than the smaller round. It’s not wrong to describe cartridges like the .223 as a high-powered round because they are. Just because they’re less powerful than a 30-06 round or .300 mag round doesn’t mean they’re still not vastly more powerful than a 9mm, .45acp, or .22LR round. Does the media use terminology wrong? Sure, in this as in all specialized areas that require some study. But you posit a vast anti-gun conspiracy in the media which is just as silly as a vast right- or left-wing media conspiracy. The media exists like any other corporation, to make money, and news reports are sensationalized because that’s what sells newspapers and ad time on network news.
One last thought, Argent Towers: challenging your political enemies to a written-word duel is a silly way to have a debate. I’d like this thread to stay open so everyone’s voice can be heard, so could I ask you to please cool it a bit? If you want other people in the closed thread to put their voices here, ask them to in a private message or something. But daring people to debate ain’t gonna get it done.
You gun rights people asked for a reason on why the AWB ban is good, and I have to admit that it isn’t as it is currently written. It is largely cosmetic and apparently statistically ineffective.
But why would any of you object to:[ol]
[li]Waiting periods before purchasing semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines[/li][li]Extended background checks and local police permission (same as concealed carry laws) for permission to purchase semi-automatic detachable magazine weapons[/li][li]Registration and tracking of sale / transfer of same through similar methods as the automatic weapons tracking currently used[/li][li]Limit of internal magazines of non-detachable magazine weapons to 6 total rounds (i.e. 5 in the magazine 1 in the pipe, or 6 in a revolver)[/li][/ol]
It is a ridiculous premise to argue that assault weapons and detachable-magazine guns are not designed to kill people; they are civilian copies of military weapons that have no other purpose, even if cosmetically changed by the manufacturer to get around the AWB. So why not restrict the ownership, purchase, transfer, and sale of these specific types of weapons to those who have a bonafide reason to own them, even if that reason is simply ‘they’re cool’, and has satisfied a minimal testing and background checking to ensure they’re going into safe hands?
It doesn’t dramatically drive up the cost of purchasing weapons; anyone can still buy hunting or personal defense weapons of choice including handguns (revolvers), long rifles, and shotguns; and it keeps the more dangerous high-capacity rapid-fire weapons of all types in the hands of reasonably trained people who are also reasonably safe in holding them (with no criminal record) and thus still acts as a safety feature to protect against an overreaching government.
Well?
BTW - saying ‘slippery slope’ isn’t really going to be good enough. We’ve had restrictions on speech for quite some time, but speech is still largely free in the US
This one does not seem objectionable to me.
Because this gives an anti-gun police chief the power to force his politics on people by denying valid requests for permission.
Because as has been shown a number of times, registration is often used as an aid for the later confiscation of weapons.
Because it doesn’t make sense to limit internal magazines if you’re not going to limit detachable magazines, and the idea of limiting detachable magazines isn’t workable.
OK, that’s a start.
Then an escalation path (i.e. the chief says no, you have appeal rights to local judiciary), but an anti-gun police chief deciding that policy for his town of which he is responsible for the safety of seems a pretty good judge of who should have assault-style weapons in their community. If the people are that against his policy, they can vote him out or vote out his political bosses.
But I thought the gun rights people wanted this down to a local issue? I thought you all wanted the Federal government out of the business of restricting weapons?
Then a Cite should be easy, if you please? This has never happened in the US or anywhere else to my knowledge.
Why does this not make sense? Limiting internal magazines is dead easy - they do it for shotguns and rifles already for hunting regulations in Montana and several other states. Illegally modifying an internal magazine carries stiff penalties for hunters already.
Look around - most hunting rifles already have a 5-shot internal magazine; most shotguns the same. Revolvers have 6 shot rotating magazines.
So what’s the problem?
(emphasis added)
This is false - there are many detachable magazine weapons which are not intended to be civilian copies of military weapons. Which military weapon exactly is my bolt-action Savage .22 rifle - which has a 10-shot detachable magazine - a civilian copy of?
http://www.savagearms.com/markiiclassic.htm
That’s a dangerous rifle with “high capacity magazine?” Really now, even for the SDMB this is getting pointless.
Don’t take this personally, but despite your earlier of saying you are familiar with guns, you may seem in fact to be somewhat unfamiliar with them. That may explain some of the frustration shown by those debating you on this topic.
Show me which US city has restrictions on free speech analogous to the restrictions Chicago or Washington DC had on gun ownership. Just one example will do.
ETA - off to of.
As Revenant Threshold said, Switzerland trains people.
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for “recruit school”), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the “militia” in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is allowed to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.
This is not personal ownership of guns, but a Government militia scheme.
Mind you, they are having doubts:
It is claimed that approximately 300 deaths per year involve the use of Swiss army guns, mostly suicides and family murders.[5] As a result of this and similar media reports, gun control advocates are trying to halt the practice of military weapons issuance and storage in the private homes of Swiss Army members. Gun supporters question the statistics and the practice has become a political issue. As of October 2007, the issuing of personal ammunition after boot camp has been discontinued and a majority of the already issued packs will be withdrawn within 2008
(same source)
Would you like to withdraw your claim that ‘If England and Germany had the population of the US, the rate of gun crime would be a hell of a lot higher, don’t you think?’ ?
Would you like to account for the high rate of US gun deaths, particularly school shootings?
Or you could just respect their rights in the first place instead of forcing them to fight tooth and nail for it.
You’ll have to ask someone in the US about that, but it seems to me that this doesn’t take the Federal government out of the equation, it just puts another person in.
It doesn’t make sense because on the Continuum of Scary Guns, a gun with an internal magazine should be closer to the “not scary” end than a gun with a detachable magazine, since you can switch out magazines instead of loading bullets one at a time. Banning a gun with a 7-round internal magazine just encourages people to buy a gun with a 7-round detachable magazine, a “more scary” gun.
“I just want to” is a valid argument? That will be a US standpoint then.
What I would like to understand is if there is a modern reason why these weapons should be not banned regardless of the lack of onus on that side to prove its point.
I have yet to see someone tell me about an Assault Weapon that is non-lethal and designed for something other than killing.
Another question, what are the rights of the people who want the weapons banned. Or don’t they exist? If there was a large majority eg. 75% + who wanted them gone, should they remaining 25% follow.
I don’t take it personally. nor do I agree. I grew up hunting and shooting and spent 7 years in the Air Force and Air National Guard. I know a little bit of what I speak. Because I don’t know every minuscule detail of every gun owned by every user or every gun banned by the AWB does not mean I am unfamiliar with guns in general or how they work, or that you can dismiss my arguments quite so easily.
And yes, I would say your 10-shot detachable magazine .22 LR Savage bolt-action rifle is significantly more dangerous than my .22LR Savage bolt-action rifle with an internal magazine simply by it’s ability to fire 10 rounds, reload in less than a second, and keep firing where my .22 bolt-action with an internal magazine would take considerably longer to do the same thing.
Berkley.
[QUOTE=Grumman]
Or you could just respect their rights in the first place instead of forcing them to fight tooth and nail for it.
[quote]
What about my rights to be safe and not be killed by some whacko in a workplace-related killing? What about my children’s right to not be killed in a school shooting? Your hobby trumps that?
No, it transfers responsibility to make the decision to local law enforcement.
Thanks, now how about a cite from a source that is slightly less cravenly biased?
It’s not about scary, it’s about capacity to do more violence more quickly. I love how the gun rights people always try to dismiss any anti-gun arguments as just people being wimps.
If you buy a gun for a purpose other than killing people, why would you need more than 7 rounds in one go? Bird hunters don’t - they’re limited by law in most states to 3 rounds. Big game hunting? Nope, again limited by law to 5 rounds. Home defense? Are you being attacked by zombies or a mob? Then why do you want to risk your neighbor’s lives firing a huge number of rounds at someone in your yard or house?
Face it - you want the scary guns. But that doesn’t trump my rights to be safe, as your scary guns are a threat to me.
And what about revolvers that hold more than 6 rounds? Are you going to want those things included in your ban of assault weapons?
Yes, it is a US position; this principle is a foundation of US Constitutional law. And whilst I am on your side in the argument to ban some guns, it is up to the government / the ban-ers to provide the justification, not the other way around.
Yes. The whole point is safety.
There are two main reasons why this is a horrible idea.
First is that there are so many jurisdictions, how can a lawful owner know the rules in every area? It is too easy for him to be simply driving through a town in which he is now committing a felony. Whoops, too bad for him, right? You ignorantly stated that this would be just like “concealed carry laws”. It isn’t like that everywhere. Florida has forbid any city or county government from making ANY laws concerning firearms. This keeps the laws uniform throughout the state and protects lawful owners from unintentional felonious possession charges. The Mayor of Miami tried a “not in my city” type stance when the carry laws were passed in the 80s. Didn’t work out so well. Good thing too.
And here’s the second big reason. You said that if the local people dont like the political views WRT to firearm possession of their police chief or mayor, then they can just “vote him out”. Okay, so then after his term is up, they go out and buy their guns. Then the next guy comes in and they are forced to sell their collection. Next term, they can rebuy all their guns… oh no, now its time to sell them or be arrested. Okay, for the next 4 years we can buy guns again. Get rid of them!!
You really think it is at all practical for people to have to buy and sell guns constantly at the whim of whomever happens to be at the top that particular term?? That’s ridiculous. If you stop to think about it, I’m sure you will agree.
People collect guns. A collection isn’t something you can just keep buying and selling every new election.
Really? How, exactly, does this idea of yours do anything to stop the Federal government passing even more anti-gun legislation?
Fine:
It doesn’t make sense because on the Continuum of Rate Of Violence, a gun with an internal magazine should be closer to the “not very quickly” end than a gun with a detachable magazine, since you can switch out magazines instead of loading bullets one at a time. Banning a gun with a 7-round internal magazine just encourages people to buy a gun with a 7-round detachable magazine, a “more quickly” gun.
Now can you address my argument instead of just getting indignant?
I don’t dismiss them, I just find them lacking completeness in some areas.
So by your criteria, a little .22 plinking rifle, common to folks all over the US, would be just as restricted as any other detachable magazine weapon? That’s really an extreme view, and I think it’s clear there will be no meeting of the minds on this issue at all.
And the point I rebutted was that it was not a copy of a military weapon, which was your initial claim. You have not yet responded or retracted that claim. I suppose one can allege that any gun is a copy of a military weapon, given that guns were originally developed for the military, but that’s not really very valid in the modern sense.
Berkley has a nearly complete ban on free speech? Am I the only one in here who finds that to be a rather extraordinary claim to make on the SDMB? You’ll forgive me if I ask for numerous cites on that one example.
Good thing in your opinion; the not in my city stance worked out very well indeed for New York and Chicago in that murder and violent crime are both down across the board.
And it’s not all that hard to make uniform laws across the country or state-wide laws as Florida did. And I would think a prosecution for a felony for possession when visiting a city would be tossed out if one is not from that city and it’s legal at home.
I think that stance is slightly ridiculous. People get grandfathered in for all sorts of things from real estate to zoning to whatever. It’s not like all of the laws concerning every issue are thrown out whenever a new party takes office.
And sorry - collectors and hobbyists not being able to do their thing is not a big enough to trump public safety.
And finally, if you find yourself in the minority regarding gun rights in your area and all of your neighbors are against the idea, why is your minority right to a hobby going to trump all of their rights to vote how they please? You can always move. I’m pretty sure Montana and I’d be willing to bet Florida aren’t going to have anti-gun lobbies successful anytime soon.
Well, the Supreme Court might have a say in that, as they just did in Heller. But YMMV.
Then in order to buy the more quickly gun they’d have to pass a more stringent background check and have the sale and ownership and transfer of that gun tracked.
Thought it was pretty simple, but could be wrong.