# The new proposed ban on "assault weapons" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2013, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423 "2013-01-26T09:06:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/421 "2013-02-20T17:06:25Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Is that your way of saying yes? Yeah, I think that makes you a bad person. FTR I’ve been against “gun free zones” since long before Sandy Hook. Is that your way of acknowledging that you don’t care about dead children. No wonder you want guns, you want to be able to defend yourself should the villagers ever grow sick of your crap and come after your with torches and pitchforks :rolleyes: > [@Bone](#): > > You can take it however you like, perhaps that I am sure that my position is correct and yours is incorrect, but unless you are using the word hypocrisy in a non-standard way, it does not mean what you think it means. I suppose I am a little. If it bothers you so much then I’ll stop saying it > [@Bone](#): > > Do you believe questions of ethics and morality are rooted in science with evidence to gather and hypothesis to test? That is not to say that evidence of the efficacy of widespread gun ownership is not in my favor, however heretofore I have not made that claim since it is not germane to this thread. The establishment and exercise of fundamental rights is a question of morality and ethics, not science. I believe this is like that old theological question: Does god do something because it is good or is something good because god does it? In my case, if I believed in god, I would say that I hope the answer is that god does something because it is good, and goodness isn’t simply what we call whatever god does. Morality with regards to gun laws should be based on something. It is not enough for me to hear: Gun rights are good. We need to say why it is good, and that why needs to be based on evidence. “Gun rights are good because it allows people to protect themselves more effectively” is an acceptable argument. “Gun rights are good because having guns is good” is not. Therefore, I believe you need to base your morality on something, not simply your feeling that it is good. I can just as well say I believe guns are immoral and should all be banned, but you’d probably ask me for at least a cite. That’s why I think you need to justify your need to own a gun. If the evidence, if science, doesn’t support you, you should abandon your support of guns > [@Bone](#): > > Your original position was that police are held to higher standards of accountability than an ordinary citizen and therefore ordinary citizens should be afforded less freedom with regard to firearms possession. Ordinary citizens face massive criminal and civil penalties should they ever use their firearm. The protections that police enjoy in using their firearms greatly surpass that of an ordinary citizen. Your rationale that police are held to higher standards of accountability is not based in reality. Then let me amend that to say that the police are held to a different standard, but one in which they can still be held accountable. Just as you originally said the police are not held accountable at all, let’s both discuss the issue more accurately. I do believe, however, that your response errs in one respect: you take qualified immunity and treat it as absolute immunity. It is true that such law enforcement _CAN_ be immune, but it is also true that they may not be. Just as their duties, I believe, requires them a different arsenal than you, so does their duties sometime require them to act in a way ordinary citizens cannot. However, that does not make them immune, so I stand by my statement that the police are held accountable just as you and I are, maybe with a different set of rules, but they are accountable and we should accept that. > [@Bone](#): > > Then we have a fundamental disagreement in the role of government and what criteria should be used to craft laws. Well I suppose there’s no much to say after this then. I’m sorry we could not come to some kind of agreement, it was kinda fun talking to you. > [@Bone](#): > > I live in CA. Open carry is prohibited, and sheriffs in the most populated counties will not issue permits to anyone that is not politically connected, a celebrity, or someone who donates large amounts of money to the sheriff’s re-election funds. And yes while Heller and McDonald did lay the groundwork for changing the existing landscape, they did not directly overturn any of the number of anti-gun laws that have been passed in CA over the years. CA has no functional equivalent of the 2nd amendment in its state constitution so any gun rights were subject to legislative whim. Each of these anti-gun laws, like banning a tan two tone tan color pistol but allowing the black color pistol, or not allowing more than one pistol purchase within a 30 day period, or maintaining the current assault weapon ban based on cosmetics, will have to be litigated individually in CA unless there is a 9th circuit or SCOTUS decision overturning something. This is a case where your ignorance of existing laws weakens your position. Your claim that I enjoy too much gun freedom is laughable. No. You said \*\* “In my state, I have no legal way to carry a firearm, of any kind.”\*\*. I think you wanted me to believe that 1) you can’t own a firearm, but 2) chose to sneak in the word “carry” to mean “open carry”. Let’s not have a devolving of the discussion here, I’ve enjoyed talking to you. But clearly you are wrong in that I live in CA and have plenty of friends who own firearms. I don’t know about the specific carry laws where you live, but you can own firearms which is more than sufficient for adherence to the 2nd Amendment. I still believe we have too many gun rights in this country and your statement does not change that. You can buy and own guns, that’s good enough. Just because you may or may not have restrictions on where, and how open, you can carry them throughout the state is not an infringement upon your rights. Let’s agree, if we are to carry on this conversation, to not confuse ownership, concealed carry, and open carry? > [@Bone](#): > > I agree, though I think your ability to speak to either is zero. Ask the people who defended their stores during the Rodney King riots in LA if they needed rifles. Rifles which are more accurate at distance and had greater magazine capacity facing hundreds of looters. Again I would ask, how many people were saved by weapons that would have been banned under the AWB? I actually don’t have any huge objection to rifles of certain kinds, I just usually limit it to handguns and shotguns. But by all means, have a rifle > [@Bone](#): > > Police use standard capacity magazines for their pistols (17+) and routinely deploy AR-15 pattern rifles with 30 round mags. The efficacy of those magazines and rifles is a given. And I am not disagreeing with that. We differ in the sense that I think the police should own those guns and you and I should not. I want them to be able to outgun civilians on an individual basis (they already do so its not really a shocker) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/422 "2013-02-20T17:25:51Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > No. You said \*\* “In my state, I have no legal way to carry a firearm, of any kind.”\*\*. I think you wanted me to believe that 1) you can’t own a firearm, but 2) chose to sneak in the word “carry” to mean “open carry”. Let’s not have a devolving of the discussion here, I’ve enjoyed talking to you. But clearly you are wrong in that I live in CA and have plenty of friends who own firearms. I don’t know about the specific carry laws where you live, but you can own firearms which is more than sufficient for adherence to the 2nd Amendment. I still believe we have too many gun rights in this country and your statement does not change that. You can buy and own guns, that’s good enough. Just because you may or may not have restrictions on where, and how open, you can carry them throughout the state is not an infringement upon your rights. Let’s agree, if we are to carry on this conversation, to not confuse ownership, concealed carry, and open carry? I said “carry”. Carry means upon my person, in any fashion. I made no claim that I could not own, I believe I’ve stated that I own plenty of firearms. Even AR-15 pattern rifles 🙂 (though not genuine Colt AR-15s because they are banned in CA). No sneaking involved and I assume you honestly misinterpreted my statement. There is no legal way for me to carry a firearm upon my person (unless I am inside my home, but again, that’s not what I’m talking about). What do you think the word “BEAR” means in the 2nd? Again, in CA, I have no legal way to carry a firearm. I believe you are the one who has confused ownership, concealed carry, and open carry. > [@](#): > > Again I would ask, how many people were saved by weapons that would have been banned under the AWB? I actually don’t have any huge objection to rifles of certain kinds, I just usually limit it to handguns and shotguns. But by all means, have a rifle But once I place an adjustable stock (the part you brace against your body for better accuracy) on the rifle so that my wife who is smaller than me can use it more effectively, that exact same rifle is now an assault weapon under the proposed bill. And that makes sense to you? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/423 "2013-02-20T17:49:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I said “carry”. Carry means upon my person, in any fashion. I made no claim that I could not own, I believe I’ve stated that I own plenty of firearms. Even AR-15 pattern rifles 🙂 (though not genuine Colt AR-15s because they are banned in CA). No sneaking involved and I assume you honestly misinterpreted my statement. There is no legal way for me to carry a firearm upon my person (unless I am inside my home, but again, that’s not what I’m talking about). What do you think the word “BEAR” means in the 2nd? Again, in CA, I have no legal way to carry a firearm. I believe you are the one who has confused ownership, concealed carry, and open carry. Well, I have no real problems with that. I think to bear a firearm does not necessarily have to mean you get to carry it around anywhere you want, and like you said, there are small chances that people can be issued a carry permit by the local authorities. I think that’s constitutional and correct. > [@Bone](#): > > But once I place an adjustable stock (the part you brace against your body for better accuracy) on the rifle so that my wife who is smaller than me can use it more effectively, that exact same rifle is now an assault weapon under the proposed bill. And that makes sense to you? No, and it would be something I’d happily change my stance on if I have all the information. I would agree that right now, basing it solely on what you said, I would disagree with the brace making the gun illegal. However, I don’t think its a big deal and cannot get riled up over its ban. I simply don’t see boogeymen around every corner like some other posters here ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/424 "2013-02-20T18:27:32Z")
Ok, so if I understand you correctly - you have no problem that I have no legal way to carry a firearm and you simultaneously think that I have too much gun freedom? Do I have that right? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/425 "2013-02-20T18:28:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The point of me asking for that from\*\* JXJohns\*\* is both because I know less about guns than him, and if he have a specific objection to a type of gun or a capability of a gun, we can discuss why or why not it should be restricted. Since he objected to some of the provisions of the ban because I didn’t know enough, and I will never know enough, then I thought perhaps he’d like to air his concerns over why a specific type or capability shouldn’t be restricted. But he punted on that, so whatever We have no common knowledge from which to discuss functionality. Just like when you first come on these boards a few years ago, you still know little to nothing about guns other than the fact that you are favor of pretty much any gun control measure that has been dreamed up. Myself and others have tried to educate you but you seem to take pride in your ignorance. I didn’t punt, I took my ball and went home as you cannot play at my level. > [@](#): > > Not you, but off the top of my head Lumpy, jtgain, Kable, JXJohns. If they haven’t been arguing that, then I either missed the post in which they said they’d agree with some restrictions or they have simply made it their MO to shoot down all suggested gun regulations without offering up any compromise on what restrictions they are willing to accept. Also, the NRA wants less regulations, so does many conservative pundits you see on the news. So yeah, lots of people. I made my points regarding legislation that I would support on the Joe Biden thread. > [@](#): > > Realistically, there’s no chance to restrict handguns to a significant degree. I’d rather they focus on what they can pass. Keep in mind that I think the AWB can have an effect, so its not just a matter of me wanting to pass a law for the sake of it If you actually read the current legislation and took a moment to understand what it will and wont do, and what firearms it actually applies to and how little they are used in crimes, there is no way you could make this claim with a straight face. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you something, do you claim that the ban on automatic weapons is an infringement that is unconstitutional? Or the ban on bazookas? I haven’t heard much about repealing those. Because there are no bans on those weapons. Again, explained to you many times. Do you actually read replies or just skim over them? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/426 "2013-02-20T18:30:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > No, and it would be something I’d happily change my stance on\*\* if I have all the information.\*\* I would agree that right now, basing it solely on what you said, I would disagree with the brace making the gun illegal. However, I don’t think its a big deal and cannot get riled up over its ban. I simply don’t see boogeymen around every corner like some other posters here (my bold) It’s from the OP, the topic being discussed, the defintion of an assault weapon as proposed by Feinstein: > [@](#): > > The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted: > > A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: > (i) A pistol grip. > (ii) A forward grip. > **(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.** > (iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher. > (v) A barrel shroud. > (vi) A threaded barrel. > > A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: > > (i) A threaded barrel. > (ii) A second pistol grip. > (iii) A barrel shroud. > (iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip. That means that a rifle is fine, until you put an adjustable stock on it. Then transforms into an assault weapon. That absurdity is what you are supporting. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/427 "2013-02-20T19:03:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ok, so if I understand you correctly - you have no problem that I have no legal way to carry a firearm and you simultaneously think that I have too much gun freedom? Do I have that right? I think you should be allowed to own guns per the Constitution. I think restricting where you can carry it is allowable under the Constitution, even if its broadly defined. I also think that local law enforcement can be strict, and if they don’t feel you meet their needs, they can restrict your carry. Often times people say they want to let local authorities enforce something or other according to local beliefs. Many times, its conservatives saying some local idiot like Arpaio should be allowed to do what he wants and if the liberals in New York or California don’t like it, they can go to hell. I’m using the same logic, if I can’t beat 'em, join 'em. Local law enforcement in CA should be able to ban you from any carry, concealed or open. Yes, you do have too many rights. Too many guns are available to you for purchase > [@Bone](#): > > (my bold) > > It’s from the OP, the topic being discussed, the defintion of an assault weapon as proposed by Feinstein: > That means that a rifle is fine, until you put an adjustable stock on it. Then transforms into an assault weapon. That absurdity is what you are supporting. All the information is not there. I haven’t heard why AWB supporters want that specific restriction. As much as you may like to attribute characteristics to the pro AWB crowd, I give them more leeway. I believe they have a reason for including that, I just don’t know what it is. Barring that, I would hesitate to say that its completely ridiculous, I have faith that those who crafted the law wanted that in there for a reason > [@JXJohns](#): > > We have no common knowledge from which to discuss functionality. Just like when you first come on these boards a few years ago, you still know little to nothing about guns other than the fact that you are favor of pretty much any gun control measure that has been dreamed up. Myself and others have tried to educate you but you seem to take pride in your ignorance. I didn’t punt, I took my ball and went home as you cannot play at my level. What knowledge would I be able to get that would satisfy your requirement that I know something about guns, in order for you to consider me having enough information to talk about gun regulations? > [@JXJohns](#): > > I made my points regarding legislation that I would support on the Joe Biden thread. Didn’t read that thread. Mind reposting that here? > [@JXJohns](#): > > If you actually read the current legislation and took a moment to understand what it will and wont do, and what firearms it actually applies to and how little they are used in crimes, there is no way you could make this claim with a straight face. Of course I can. Even acknowledging the low amount of gun crime committed using the types of guns, and knowing about the loopholes within the AWB, it matters little because like many others have mentioned, you have alternatives. Therefore, your rights are not being infringed. Again, I make the comparison to a law banning civilian contact with Martians. It may do nothing, it may be a pointless waste of time (not saying the AWB is), but if it affects nothing, then no rights are harmed. > [@JXJohns](#): > > Because there are no bans on those weapons. Again, explained to you many times. Do you actually read replies or just skim over them? I think someone mentioned there is. I forgot who, but in another post someone mentioned a federal law banning automatic weapons, and often the comparable analogy of a ban on bazookas is invoked without challenge. I’ll change my question to you then: do you believe a ban on ownership of automatic weapons, bazookas, and bombs would be Constitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/428 "2013-02-20T19:34:07Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > All the information is not there. I haven’t heard why AWB supporters want that specific restriction. As much as you may like to attribute characteristics to the pro AWB crowd, I give them more leeway. I believe they have a reason for including that, I just don’t know what it is. Barring that, I would hesitate to say that its completely ridiculous, I have faith that those who crafted the law wanted that in there for a reason The reason for the specific restriction is irrelevant. The result is the same regardless of the intent or rationale of the crafters of the bill. A perfectly legal, semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine will become illegal if place an adjustable stock on it. That’s absurd. Keep in mind, there are already restrictions for short barreled rifles and rifles with an overall length less than a proscribed minimum. This is going from one legal overall length to another legal overall length. The length isn’t at issue, it’s the ability to adjust. All of the sudden it’s illegal. > [@](#): > > I think you should be allowed to own guns per the Constitution. I think restricting where you can carry it is allowable under the Constitution, even if its broadly defined. I also think that local law enforcement can be strict, and if they don’t feel you meet their needs, they can restrict your carry. Then we are at an impasse and you have perfectly illustrated why a need based system is unacceptable. You are perfectly okay with the fact that I have no legal way to carry a firearm of any kind. That is so nonsensical to me it may as well be a different language. Again, we have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government and exercise of rights in a way that we could never meet on common ground. And this is why the ‘no compromise ever’ approach is often taken. > [@](#): > > Often times people say they want to let local authorities enforce something or other according to local beliefs. Many times, its conservatives saying some local idiot like Arpaio should be allowed to do what he wants and if the liberals in New York or California don’t like it, they can go to hell. I’m using the same logic, if I can’t beat 'em, join 'em. Fundamental rights are not subject to local interpretation. The 2nd amendment has been incorporated against the states. The state by state, and local experiments with regards to the 2nd are over. As I mentioned earlier, two wolves and a sheep don’t get to vote on what’s for dinner - fundamental rights are not a matter that can be voted on. ---
**Author:** ![AdamF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/adamf/32/6246_2.png) [@AdamF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdamF)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/429 "2013-02-20T19:43:12Z")
I am sorry to jump into the middle of a thread. I have tried to follow the topic over the last couple of weeks in the news, but I am still rather confused. Could somebody, please, explain to me what AWB is supposed to achieve and how? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/430 "2013-02-20T20:04:42Z")
And I messed up my quote/reply. Hopefully that makes sense but I’ve requested a mod delete the extra text ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/431 "2013-02-20T20:25:35Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What knowledge would I be able to get that would satisfy your requirement that I know something about guns, in order for you to consider me having enough information to talk about gun regulations? Well, we started this circle jerk when you joined in 2008. I would like to think that you use the power that is literally at your fingertips to understand the cause and effects of the major gun control acts of 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994. Be able to speak clearly about what guns were covered, and what, if any changes to crime rates could be definitively pinned to those acts. Second, I would think that if you wanted to have some authority behind your claims to want to ban guns, you would understand the differences in the basic functions of semi auto, full auto, pumps, bolts, and lever actions. Understand the difference between an assault rifle vs. today’s “assault weapon” and then explain to me why according to you [this](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Mini14GB.jpg) is specifically exempted in the current AW ban legislation but [this](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/firearms-images-products-446l.jpg) is banned. > [@](#): > > Didn’t read that thread. Mind reposting that here? > [@ME](#): > > Making me jump through more hoops than I do today to buy the same thing tomorrow does not give me anything. You are correct. Here is what I would suggest: > > Allowing me 50 state reciprocity for concealed carry in return for universal background checks when buying or selling guns gives me something in return and earns my support. > > Remove the restrictions on NFA weapons in return for full and complete registration of firearms and I would stand arm and arm with Ms. Feinstein as the President signed the bill into law. > > That’s what I am looking for. Win win. It’s not that hard of a concept. > [@](#): > > Of course I can. Even acknowledging the low amount of gun crime committed using the types of guns, and knowing about the loopholes within the AWB, it matters little because like many others have mentioned, you have alternatives. Therefore, your rights are not being infringed. Again, I make the comparison to a law banning civilian contact with Martians. It may do nothing, it may be a pointless waste of time (not saying the AWB is), but if it affects nothing, then no rights are harmed. Your claim that I was replying to was: > [@](#): > > Keep in mind that I think the AWB can have an effect, so its not just a matter of me wanting to pass a law for the sake of it I’ll ask again, What in the current legislation today will have any affect on gun crime? This has nothing to do with rights. You think it will be effective, I would like you to tell me how that can be. You are in support of this legislation, so what about it garners that support? > [@](#): > > I think someone mentioned there is. I forgot who, but in another post someone mentioned a federal law banning automatic weapons, and often the comparable analogy of a ban on bazookas is invoked without challenge. I’ll change my question to you then: do you believe a ban on ownership of automatic weapons, bazookas, and bombs would be Constitutional? There are no such bans. There are Federal regulations to be followed in which to own full auto guns or bazookas. Any ban of such firearms would face a significant challenge. I would not support any such ban. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/432 "2013-02-20T20:26:09Z")
> [@AdamF](#): > > Could somebody, please, explain to me what AWB is supposed to achieve… ? Votes. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/433 "2013-02-20T21:28:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The reason for the specific restriction is irrelevant. The result is the same regardless of the intent or rationale of the crafters of the bill. A perfectly legal, semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine will become illegal if place an adjustable stock on it. That’s absurd. Keep in mind, there are already restrictions for short barreled rifles and rifles with an overall length less than a proscribed minimum. This is going from one legal overall length to another legal overall length. The length isn’t at issue, it’s the ability to adjust. All of the sudden it’s illegal. I think its very relevant. There may be some hidden or non-obvious reason we’re missing. This comes down to trust; I trust that these people have a good reason, you believe the opposite. That’s perfectly fine, I’m just unwilling to slam the law over what I consider incomplete information. I will say that if the sole purpose of a ban is cosmetic, then I don’t think I would be for that. > [@Bone](#): > > Then we are at an impasse and you have perfectly illustrated why a need based system is unacceptable. You are perfectly okay with the fact that I have no legal way to carry a firearm of any kind. That is so nonsensical to me it may as well be a different language. Again, we have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government and exercise of rights in a way that we could never meet on common ground. And this is why the ‘no compromise ever’ approach is often taken. There is a legal way, get permission from the local authorities. Its just too cumbersome in your estimation. Inability to meet the standards of the law isn’t intrinsically a fault of the law > [@Bone](#): > > Fundamental rights are not subject to local interpretation. The 2nd amendment has been incorporated against the states. The state by state, and local experiments with regards to the 2nd are over. As I mentioned earlier, two wolves and a sheep don’t get to vote on what’s for dinner - fundamental rights are not a matter that can be voted on. I’ve made it clear that I don’t consider public carry to be a fundamental right. Ownership is the benchmark. > [@JXJohns](#): > > Well, we started this circle jerk when you joined in 2008. I would like to think that you use the power that is literally at your fingertips to understand the cause and effects of the major gun control acts of 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994. Be able to speak clearly about what guns were covered, and what, if any changes to crime rates could be definitively pinned to those acts. Ah yes, I remember that topic. It was the one where someone linked to a 100+ page PDF file of a study from a pro gun guy, who mentioned in the text that some bans or restrictions does have a noticeable effect on gun violence, and then when I quoted that, somebody, might have been E-Sabbath or someone with an E name, said something to the effect of “you’re reading the words but the words don’t matter, its the meaning”. After that I knew I wasn’t going to get a straight answer I don’t want to have to do the research and have you come back and say I did the wrong ones. I will read whatever link to a specific law passed in those years if you link it and I promise to respond honestly no matter what I find, deal? > [@JXJohns](#): > > Second, I would think that if you wanted to have some authority behind your claims to want to ban guns, you would understand the differences in the basic functions of semi auto, full auto, pumps, bolts, and lever actions. Understand the difference between an assault rifle vs. today’s “assault weapon” and then explain to me why according to you [this](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Mini14GB.jpg) is specifically exempted in the current AW ban legislation but [this](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/firearms-images-products-446l.jpg) is banned. Alright, I will do my best to look up the differences between those things. Of course, if I make a mistake, I’m sure you’ll correct me. This might take some time > [@](#): > > Making me jump through more hoops than I do today to buy the same thing tomorrow does not give me anything. You are correct. Here is what I would suggest: > > Allowing me 50 state reciprocity for concealed carry in return for universal background checks when buying or selling guns gives me something in return and earns my support. > > Remove the restrictions on NFA weapons in return for full and complete registration of firearms and I would stand arm and arm with Ms. Feinstein as the President signed the bill into law. > > That’s what I am looking for. Win win. It’s not that hard of a concept. First I would respond that your opening premise is false. If the regulations enacted prevented other types of harm, then it does give you more freedom. Less freedom in one area can easily be traded for more in another, it is not an alien concept. In the case of gun control, supporters trade the lessening of gun availability for the freedom of less violence Second point, I hope your background checks also include licensing and registration. If not, I don’t believe just universal background checks are a sufficient carrot for the exchange I don’t know what NFA stands for > [@JXJohns](#): > > Your claim that I was replying to was: > > I’ll ask again, What in the current legislation today will have any affect on gun crime? This has nothing to do with rights. You think it will be effective, I would like you to tell me how that can be. You are in support of this legislation, so what about it garners that support? I believe that banning something like assault weapons makes it harder for everybody to get it. Any time when you have extra hoops to jump through in order to reach an objective, by the basic concept of math you’re going to lose some people. I don’t fear a backlash, that is, I don’t fear that reducing it will increase the number of assault weapons due to some desire to fight back at The Man. In the current legislation, many types of weapons are banned. Some people will inevitably run up against those types when they want to purchase a gun and they will be discouraged from doing so. They may end up purchasing nothing, a legal alternative, a less powerful gun, or a more powerful one. I don’t believe only the last alternative is realistic. That is why I support this law. > [@JXJohns](#): > > There are no such bans. There are Federal regulations to be followed in which to own full auto guns or bazookas. Any ban of such firearms would face a significant challenge. I would not support any such ban. For the purposes of this argument, I’ll accept that as the complete truth. So, 2 questions naturally follow: why aren’t gun people as out to overturn those regulations as they are to block or overturn existing ones on more popular guns? (my take: just like me and the AWB, they see the political winds and do what’s doable), and the second question is: why would you ever need a bazooka or be against such a ban? I’ll refrain from using nukes as an example, that always seems to get people upset that they stop talking ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/434 "2013-02-20T21:52:18Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think its very relevant. There may be some hidden or non-obvious reason we’re missing. This comes down to trust; I trust that these people have a good reason, you believe the opposite. That’s perfectly fine, I’m just unwilling to slam the law over what I consider incomplete information. > > I will say that if the sole purpose of a ban is cosmetic, then I don’t think I would be for that. It is very similar to the 1994 federal ban, and the 1989 CA ban that is still in place. No such hidden or non-obvious reason has ever been offered and the AWB has near universally been met with derision because it is focused on cosmetics. I think you are approaching an [appeal to ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance) here. It’s okay, there are those on this very board who have changed their stance on the AWB after realizing it’s focused on cosmetics and will do nothing against violent crime. I think if you looked at what is being defined as an assault weapon you would come to the same conclusion. > [@](#): > > There is a legal way, get permission from the local authorities. Its just too cumbersome in your estimation. Inability to meet the standards of the law isn’t intrinsically a fault of the law No. While the law states that local sheriffs may issue a CCW (permit to carry concealed), they don’t. It’s not a question of standards when there are no actual standards to be met other than, “I don’t like you”. It’s not cumbersome to apply. You submit your application, you are denied, case closed. You can sue them, but the sheriff has absolute discretion in issuance policies. If you think that is acceptable exercise of constitutional authority you really are speaking a different language. San Francisco has a population of near 800K people. There is 1 person with a CCW permit. Contra Costa County has 1M people, with less than 200 permit holders. Alameda County has 1.5M people, with less than 150 permit holders. (Populations from wiki, permit numbers from [here.](http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_19521214)) > [@](#): > > I’ve made it clear that I don’t consider public carry to be a fundamental right. Ownership is the benchmark. This issue is currently being litigated in CA and pending two cases in the 9th circuit. It has won in the 7th circuit and is pending cert to SCOTUS in the 2nd circuit. Eventually, gun rights supporters will win in the courts, and any talk of compromise will fall by the wayside. It’s important to note that the right we are talking about is “to keep AND bear”. Keep = own, what do you think the word “bear” in the 2nd means? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/435 "2013-02-20T22:05:31Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I moved this part of your response to the top, because I figured it would do more good if you read my response to this first rather than near the end. But I think you have great ideas here and I would be totally supportive of this and abandon my support of the AWB and my desire to see restrictions on concealed carry in my response to **Bone**. We have a lot in common. However, I see this as almost a fairy tale, it will never happen because of political opposition. Democrats can debate whether parts of your proposed laws are good or needs tweaking, but Republicans in general will all be lined up against it. Partly because they are a traitorous, evil lot, and know such regulations would be more effective than an AWB that they can poke hole in. I think they are playing a game, they know _something_ must pass after Sandy Hook, but they don’t want effective legislation, they want something like the AWB in which the banned weapons have similar alternatives. So keep that in mind as you read the rest of my responses to you please. I don’t think thast liceinsing and registration is impossible and I think that Democrats are playing their cards all wrong. They could have gotten a lot for dropping idiotic provisions like the AWB a month ago especially if they dropped magazine limitation to sweeten the deal but they not only overplayed their hand, they played right into the hands of the gun nuts. Now they would be lucky to get a reasonably good background check law. > [@](#): > > How about we limit all legal guns to that, and make it illegal to own, sale, or manufacture any other type for regular citizens? The only people who own, sell or manufacture other types of guns (primarily short barrel and automatic) are highly regulated and we have not seen more than a handful of homocides committed with these types of weapons in the last several decades. Automatic guns cost as much as a small car and some of them cost as much as a small house. > [@](#): > > We (me and **Bone** ) weren’t talking about abuse of CCP people, we were talking about minimizing abuse of government entities of the psych tests. He thinks it would be abused and I think there would be a way to minimize it to make such a requirement manageable. There are almost 100 million gun owners. There are fewer than 100,000 practicing psychologists. If you want this to be part of the licensing process, you would want the psych exam every 5 years or so. You would need to increase the number of practicing psychologists by 20-25% just to fulfill this rather intrusive (and prone to abuse) requirement. > [@](#): > > It sounds like you really believe that national licensing and registration might actually do some good. Why not support that whole-heartedly instead of doing this song and dance about how you’d only support this if us gun controllers gave up our dream of banning all firearms like that’s a serious goal? I don’t condition my support for licensing and reigstration on anything. I won’t abandon a good idea because someone may propose a bad idea later on. And think the dream of banning all firearms IS a serious goal for a lot of gun control advocates. If they can do it in other countries, why not here? > [@](#): > > 1. Are you the norm or the outlier? I don’t think 100 rounds a month is a lot. I fired over 1000 rounds witha friend from out of town over the weekend. > [@](#): > > 1. Sounds like the problem is with NYPD (and other PD’s) requirements, not simply that you cannot rely on the police. Besides, others here have expressed their concern not that the police are untrained or can’t hit the broad side of a barn, but that they are corrupt, lazy, and won’t help you. If you are not one of those people and you trust the police to do their jobs, then this is just a red herring I think that poor training is a separate problem. I think that cops try to do their job but sometimes, they can’t be everywhere they are needed. I remember the LA riots and cops were not able to handle things. People needed their firearms to protect themselves and their livelihoods. > [@](#): > > Guns are the only thing on the list that, when used correctly, causes harm. Yes, I agree, guns are particularly lethal. They are a force multiplier and that force can only be effecively countered by other people with guns (thats why we give guns to cops). The presence of good people with guns mitigates the impact of a bad guy with a gun. > [@](#): > > If you agree that all guns should be similarly registered like cars, able to pass regular inspections, and people have to be qualified to use it, then I would totally be up for that. But many people want guns to be on that same list but unregulated, unlicensed, able to be bought by any untrained idiot and passed around freely with no regulation. I think we are in agreement on licensign and registration. > [@](#): > > Its stupid because it prevents people in that position from having an abortion of which there is no alternative. There are alternatives to partial biorth abortion. What do you think is happening now with pregnanvies that would have been terminated with partial birth abortions in the past? They are being terminated with other types of abortions. So I am having trouble seeing why its such a bad analogy. > [@](#): > > The AWB allows you to have an alternative, which is precisely why I don’t think it infringes upon anyone’s rights. If there exists some class of people who are only able to own assault weapons and no other type of weapons, then I would be against the AWB Like I said, there are alternatives to partial birth abortions. Putting hobbyists and collectors aside, there are two classes of people who might have what YOU would consider a legitimate reason to want an AR-15. Former military might have spent eyars training with and getting familiar with the AR-15 format. They are not only proficient and comfortable with these weapons, they know how to use them safely. People like my wife might want a manstopper. There is no handgun that fires a manstopper that my wife can comfortably handle. She can’t handle shotguns very well either. But she is very comfortable with an AR-15 with frangible rounds (so I don’t end up killing my neighbors). So the AR-15 works pretty well for smaller people. > [@](#): > > Call the police bumper sticker: When seconds count, the police are only a few minutes away. > [@](#): > > Hey, I didn’t bring abortion into this, you did. You tell me why it should be relevant I bring it up because some people defend this right that isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but diminsh and minimize a right that IS explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. > [@](#): > > You said “Repeal the 2nd Amendment and I could be swayed” That tells me that your arguments are based not on some justification for the 2nd Amendment, but that just the existence of that law is justification enough. In a world where such an amendment doesn’t exist, you’d be where I am, arguing guns are bad, ignoring any evidence you see because there’s no law saying you can own a gun. I find that incredibly disingenuous. If that’s not how I intended to take that quoted statement, then please clarify yourself There is a difference between “could” and “would” If you read the post I was replying to, you would see that I was replying to a post that was complaining that my side of the argument seems to be unpersuadable, that we would never move from our position. Well one reason our position is a bit immovable is because there is a constitutional amendment protecting the position we are taking. However on rereading THAT post, it seems like you might have been referring to some of the more extreme positions. > [@](#): > > And I commend you for your position on that I think its an entirely reasonable position that people would be happy to adopt if Teddy Roosevelt proposed it. They just don’t trust Obama and recent behaviour shows that they were right not to trust him. > [@](#): > > Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. The question is: should it? Well, that is all a matter of opinion. Do you think that a failsafe against tyranny is relevant in this day and age? Do you think that the original vision of a small professional military supplemented by militia is preferable to the large standing army we have now? If you were a Korean storeowner during the LA riots, would you see any need for a semi-automatic rifle? > [@](#): > > I do, and the middle is that he is allowed to own guns but not every type in existence, even if, say, a gatling gun mounted to point at the front door increases his family’s safety by 0.001% percent. I think that as a society, we have a tradeoff between personal and public safety. I think that he should be allowed to own guns, but that things like assault weapons should be banned. He can make do with handguns and shotguns, and maybe some other type Just reminding you that the term assault weapon is a political term created to describe a semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic and ergonomic features (with the exception of the detachable magazine) and that an assault weapon is indistinguishable from a semi-automatic hunting rifle. We’ve been down this road before, we had a decade long AWB and it had no discernable effect. How many bites at this apple do you think you want to take before you admit that its either retarded or that you will take the opportunity to ban whatever firearm you can get the political will to ban? > [@](#): > > Is that a serious answer? Not the NRA part but the DOJ part, yes. I am also serious about the logistics of giving psych evaluations to 100 million people. > [@](#): > > Who protected themselves with an AR-15 during the LA Riots? Koreatown. Everything from AK-47s to mosin nagants and glocks, even a few machine guns. > [@](#): > > Not you, but off the top of my head Lumpy, jtgain, Kable, JXJohns. If they haven’t been arguing that, then I either missed the post in which they said they’d agree with some restrictions or they have simply made it their MO to shoot down all suggested gun regulations without offering up any compromise on what restrictions they are willing to accept. Also, the NRA wants less regulations, so does many conservative pundits you see on the news. So yeah, lots of people. I think we might have differning definitions of “unrestricted” > [@](#): > > Like abortion, which you brought up, losing one’s ability to exercise the vote once means your rights have been infringed. Losing the right to own one type of gun does not infringe on your right to own guns Of course it does. The question isn’t whether there is an infringement. The question is whether the infringement is constitutional. > [@](#): > > Realistically, there’s no chance to restrict handguns to a significant degree. I’d rather they focus on what they can pass. Keep in mind that I think the AWB can have an effect, so its not just a matter of me wanting to pass a law for the sake of it The push in the 1980’s was for handgun regulation, then we had people like Bernie Goetz come along and it really touched a nerve. Politicians never tried to go after handguns again. We already had an AWB, it had no discernable effect taht last time around so why blow all your political capital on somethign that will have AT MOST a marginal effect? You are hurting your own cause by chasing ineffecive laws that piss people off instead of highly effective laws that people will either begrudgingly admit might be for the greater good or admit that they have paranoid delusions that this is all part of a multi-decade plan to confiscate all the guns. > [@](#): > > First, I’m not spending political capital, the Dems are, not that I agree with all of their decisions but I’ll take what I can get. You get what you ask for. if people keep asking for a retarded AWb then that is what they are going to try and get. if you ask for licesing and registration, THAT is what they will propose. > [@](#): > > And second, so you spend some gas, so what? Maybe you’ll reconsider killing yourself or your boss given a few days to think it over. It is not unreasonable to force you to do that considering the alternatives Well, considering that a disproportionate number of gun crimes are committed with newly acquired guns, I suppose there may be something to that but the relevant time period is measured in months not days. Do you have any evidence that a disproportionate number of gun crimes are committed within a few days of acquisition of a gun? > [@](#): > > Are laws trying lower abortions unconstitutional because they don’t work? Abstinence education, reducing abortion clinics, making unreasonable demands of clinics are all useless to reducing abortion, are they unconstitutional too? The “right to an abortion” is actually a “right to privacy” To the extent that a law invades your privacy for no good reason, then I think that law might be unconstitutional. For example, our governor recently made national news for supporting a law that would have required a vaginal ultrasound so that the pregnant woman could see the blob of cells before it was aborted, he was pulled off the short list for Republican VP nominee because of it. I think that law would have in fact been unconstitutional as an unjustifiable invasion of privacy. A lot of the other stuff is dirty pool and in cases where you are chasing out the last abortion provider in the state, there might be some constitutional issues but stuff like abstinence education are not problematic. They dobn’t have to work as long as they aren’t violating a right. [quote] Besides, I think the AWB wasn’t given enough time to do its work. [quote] Ten years isn’t long enough? > [@](#): > > Plus, like you said, there are problems with it. Instead of attacking the law as unconstitutional in the first place, maybe you should help to close the loopholes that you see in it. The reason why such a law was possible was because of heinous opposition. They pro gun people want a law with loopholes so they can claim it doesn’t work. Instead of doing that, let’s just close the loopholes I don’t have any interest in passing a law that will effectively ban guns unless it will reduce gun violence and I don’t think it will. Even the EXTREMELY successful machine gun ban did not have any effect on overall gun violence, partly because the licensing and registration requirement had already leeched all the machine gun violence out of the system and because criminals are left with other options. > [@](#): > > Its your opinion. Nope its fact. > [@](#): > > Does reduction of pollution curtail our rights? Which right is that? > [@](#): > > Does mandating that restaurants must uphold some health standard a violation? What right is being curtailed here? > [@](#): > > When the right protected is your ability to go about your day and not be harmed, then that’s the right you should be concerned about. You have that right. How is that right being curtailed? What GOVERNMENT action is harming you? > [@](#): > > Only cartoon logic states that once you try something and it doesn’t work like you hoped, you abandon it. How many times does it have to fail before you abandon it? You CAN’T make a rule that works, these sort of rules CANNOT work short of a complete ban on firearms. Its like trying to stop a river by building half a dam. > [@](#): > > The right course of action is to pass it again, with eliminated loopholes, for 50 years, so that we see a tangible difference. 50 years? Might as well just call it a permanent ban and just let the next congress repeal it when the Democrats lose the senate and the white house because of it. You’re building half a dam. > [@](#): > > Precious few people are talking about registration and stuff like that, to your credit you do so, but once more, banning a few types of guns, like we do with bazookas, automatic weapons, bombs, etc. is NOT an infringement. Yeah, I think a LOT of gun owners agree with that. But an AWB is stupid and cannot work. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you something, do you claim that the ban on automatic weapons is an infringement that is unconstitutional? Or the ban on bazookas? I haven’t heard much about repealing those Clearly these are not useful for self defense, they are not the common soldier’s firearm and there are no states that are intersted in their citizens having bazookas BUT if the state of Georgia decided that they wanted fully automatic AR-15s available to their citizens, then I think they might have the right to have the right to have Georgia produced fully automatic AR-15s sold to their state residents. > [@](#): > > Yes you’re right, it is not voter fraud but voter suppression by definition. However, the basic concept is to empower certain groups of voters while disenfranchising others. Whatever name you call it, it is evil and must be stopped. I see little overlap in the two issues That might be because you simply don’t care very much for the right to bear arms. I agree that voting rights are in a league of their own when it comes to rights ina democracy but I think there is some analogy between Republicans passing ineffective laws to address a tiny portion of a problem and Democrats passing ineffective laws to address a tiny portion of a problem. > [@](#): > > That’s irrelevant. The point is that this should be the law. We can find a way to enforce it later on, and I can think of a few. I don’t think its enforcable unless you confiscate all existing magazines. > [@](#): > > But do you think that it should be illegal to modify weapons to illegal version except for LEOs? How would you be able to tell which magazines were modified before the ban and which were modified after the ban? > [@](#): > > I ask you because of the nature of your response will speak to whether you have an intrinsic opposition to LEOs being able to own more effective weapons than non-LEOs. I think they should, they are, after all, law enforcement, and are sent into trouble instead of running away from it. Therefore, their job dictates that they need better weapons than you or I. I am not paranoid, I don’t think we’ll turn into a dictatorship, so I trust LEOs with more firepower. And if we were simply talking about the personal right of self defense, then I would agree that our right to bear arms is limited to what we need for effective self defense. (for my wife, that might mean an AR-15). > [@](#): > > Is that accurate? Yes. > [@](#): > > What are those called? On selective fire guns, you have the option to fire single round, full auto or burst fire. You are talking about burst fire. > [@](#): > > And knowing what I know about semi’s now, it makes even more sense to me to limit magazine capacity. Sure, you can still shoot fast. But if we can’t force you to shoot slower, then you should at least be able to shoot less bullets in a row. There is a better argument for capping magazine capacity than the AWB. Its still not a great argument. > [@](#): > > Extreme pro gun people see ways around that, like those reloaders with multiple bullets in them, and they brag how quickly they can reload a gun. But every little thing that may cut down on speedy shooting may help, and these little restrictions might be annoying but perfectly lawful. To me, they don’t see the big picture and that’s what sad. Thank you for your response, its rare that someone acknowledges that one doesn’t have to be an expert with guns to want to curtail its violence. Too many people would see lack of knowledge as being unqualified, but if any yokel can give their minor child a gun and teach him to use it, then this yokel can at least say we should have limits. I talk about stuff I am ignorant about all the time, just ask Ibn and Finn. I also think taht you can have an opinion about things at a theoretical level without knowing all the facts. I think well informed people can disagree about this stuff but we shouldn’t disagree about the facts. And if i have mroe facts than you, I shoudn’t hold that over you or keep them a secret from you. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/436 "2013-02-20T22:14:51Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I don’t want to have to do the research and have you come back and say I did the wrong ones. I will read whatever link to a specific law passed in those years if you link it and I promise to respond honestly no matter what I find, deal? I posted links earlier in this thread. It was a reply to you I believe. > [@](#): > > First I would respond that your opening premise is false. If the regulations enacted prevented other types of harm, then it does give you more freedom. Less freedom in one area can easily be traded for more in another, it is not an alien concept. In the case of gun control, supporters trade the lessening of gun availability for the freedom of less violence > > Second point, I hope your background checks also include licensing and registration. If not, I don’t believe just universal background checks are a sufficient carrot for the exchange I simply stated what I would support and under what conditions I would support it. Just like the NRA is not, I am not screaming from the rooftops to remove all gun laws. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what NFA stands for See the GCA of 1934 link earlier in this thread. > [@](#): > > I believe that banning something like assault weapons makes it harder for everybody to get it. Any time when you have extra hoops to jump through in order to reach an objective, by the basic concept of math you’re going to lose some people. Right out of the gate, you are incorrect in what the bill does. I asked you to read it and specifically tell me what will affect the minimal amount of crime committed while using these guns. There is no confiscatory language in the bill. Everything that I own today, I will own should it be enacted. There are millions and millions of these things out there and guns last forever. Not only that, because the term “assault weapon” is such a weak ass term, there are plenty of guns such as those that I linked to in my previous post that will be perfectly legal after the ban and function _exactly_ the same. So let’s try again, what do you think is going to make anything different? > [@](#): > > …In the current legislation, many types of weapons are banned. Some people will inevitably run up against those types when they want to purchase a gun and they will be discouraged from doing so. They may end up purchasing nothing, a legal alternative, a less powerful gun, or a more powerful one. I don’t believe only the last alternative is realistic. That is why I support this law. Without confiscating firearms, and using cosmetic differences in order to determine “powerfulness” there will be plenty of guns that are just as powerful that will be perfectly legal should the ban get passed. It’s not a ban, it’s a joke. > [@](#): > > For the purposes of this argument, I’ll accept that as the complete truth. I have no reason to deceive. the anti gun groups, yourself excluded, thrive on deception and misinformation. > [@](#): > > So, 2 questions naturally follow: why aren’t gun people as out to overturn those regulations as they are to block or overturn existing ones on more popular guns? I am a member of a local group that will be attempting to do so. Right now our focus is on the defeat of the AW ban. > [@](#): > > and the second question is: why would you ever need a bazooka or be against such a ban? I don’t need one. However, I will support anyone who thinks that they do and can jump through the hoops in place to legally own it. That’s the best thing about gun rights. Just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean that you have to own one. Some people like Chevy, others like Ford. Some like trucks, others drive motorcycles. In the end, we are all gun enthusiasts and should support each other. I don’t want to ban things simple because I might not be interested in them. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/437 "2013-02-21T02:05:29Z")
> [@AdamF](#): > > I am sorry to jump into the middle of a thread. I have tried to follow the topic over the last couple of weeks in the news, but I am still rather confused. > > Could somebody, please, explain to me what AWB is supposed to achieve and how? No problem **AdamF** , the sheer length of some of these threads make it daunting for latecomers. To restate the basics: An Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) is a law such as was enforced by the federal government from 1994 to 2004, and the one currently proposed, to outlaw certain models of firearms or firearms possessing certain features. Gun control advocates claim that such firearms are militarized to a degree that makes them inappropriate for civilian ownership and a hazard to the public safety. Banning them is supposed to reduce the risk and incidence of such infamous public gun sprees as have been in the news recently. What’s extraordinarily controversial is whether an AWB will achieve that. The biggest objection raised by opponents of AWBs is that what counts as an “assault weapon” is illogical and arbitrary. The majority of firearms considered assault weapons superficially look like military assault rifles or submachineguns but have little or no difference in function from more traditional firearms. This has led critics to deride AWBs as a ban on “scary-looking guns”. They also point out that the number of crimes committed with such weapons are negligible compared to the number committed with hand guns. Many gun proponents object to the very idea that some guns should be out of civilian hands, and worry about a “slippery slope” of allowing a precedent for more and more restrictions on what types of firearms citizens are allowed to own, eventually ending in a _de facto_ ban on the private possession of firearms Proponents of gun control insist that there is no valid reason why anyone outside government should need such weapons and insist that limiting the private possession of deadly force is an essential purpose of government. Many differ on just how far guns should be limited but most gun control proponents at a minimum agree on an AWB. Even those gun control advocates who admit an AWB might have little practical effect take the position that we “have to start somewhere” to try to reduce the prevalence of gun violence in our country. A few really do advocate the eventual outlawing of privately held firearms. In short, an Assault Weapon Ban is the frontline of the controversy between proponents and opponents of gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/438 "2013-02-21T04:00:42Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > There is no confiscatory language in the bill. I think this is another area that gun control advocates (tourists?) don’t understand. Confiscation of firearms face a pretty high constitutional hurdle, that’s why all bans are on future sales and manufacture. > [@Lumpy](#): > > In short, an Assault Weapon Ban is the frontline of the controversy between proponents and opponents of gun control. For the most part, its territory that the gun control advocates already know theya re going to lose and they didn’t have the good sense to trade it for something, instead they overplayed their hand and might end up with a watered down form of enhanced background checks (applicable to sales at gun shows but not all private sales). > [@](#): > > Making me jump through more hoops than I do today to buy the same thing tomorrow does not give me anything. You are correct. Here is what I would suggest: > > Allowing me 50 state reciprocity for concealed carry in return for universal background checks when buying or selling guns gives me something in return and earns my support. > > Remove the restrictions on NFA weapons in return for full and complete registration of firearms and I would stand arm and arm with Ms. Feinstein as the President signed the bill into law. > > That’s what I am looking for. Win win. It’s not that hard of a concept. This isn’t lets make a deal and I would support national licensing and national carry without anything else because I think it would be a slight burden on me while it would be a horrible inconveneince for criminals. But yeah, these are more or less the tradeoffs I would like to make. Lift the ban on manufacture and sale of selective fire weapons in those states that want to permit their manufacture and sale and you can have universal licensing and registration as long as the licensing gives me carry rights in every state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=21)