My original contention was that the AWB was a reaction to the proliferation of rifles that looked like they were for the purpose of killing people rather than hunting or target shooting; i.e., it was a reaction to a change in the American gun culture from what was seen as benign purposes for rifles to something more sinister.
I wonder if you’d feel the same if someone decided to ban books based on their covers. Would you feel that this was where it would end, or would you be suspicious that this was only the beginning? Let’s say that an ultra-right wing group gained enough support to ban books based on ‘explicit’ covers on books (based on their own interpretation of what ‘explicit’ is of course). Would you feel it’s a CT that they were merely using this as some kind of trick to fly under the radar on their way to banning everything they find distasteful? How about if we shift that to books based on Evolution being banned?
You don’t care about guns. You probably don’t like them. I get that. However, try and put yourself in the pro-gun folks shoes and think about it in the context of something you DO like and believe in. Now, think about if some small but vocal group decided to try some back door way to ban that thing you care or are concerned about…how would YOU feel in that case?
-XT
It’s got nothing to do with Black Helicopters or Stormtroopers with Swastikas.
It has everything to do with what the Brady Campaign has freely and openly admitted their end goal is.
So, it’s a reaction to the fact that technology has changed, and that there are more advanced, cheaper, safer materials to make firearms out of.
It’s great that you care about something, but paranoid ramblings about the sinister reasons that people want guns regulated doesn’t advance your cause. A lot of people get killed by guns in this country, and a portion of the public has persuaded their representatives to do something about it by regulating guns. You may agree or disagree about what regulations make sense, but this is no great conspiracy. I just wish gun advocates who are so hyper-aware of affronts to unfettered gun ownership had been half as vocal during the past 8 years as large portions of the Constitution were being ignored.
So which of these:
[ul]
[li]A folding or telescoping stock [/li][li]A detachable magazine [/li][li]A pistol grip [/li][li]A bayonet mount [/li][li]A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one [/li][li]A grenade launcher[/li][/ul]
Is the result of advanced, cheaper, safer materials to make firearms out of?
Let’s equalize the analogy. First, you have to assume there are already tons of books banned*, and nobody is seriously advocating unbanning them. Second, the newly “banned” books with the racy covers are freely available with more tame covers.
So, how would I feel about some books with racy covers being added to the thousands of books we’ve already happily banned, when the books are also available with plainer covers? Oh, and those books have already been banned recently, and the world, surprising, didn’t come to an end, nor were there any serious attempts made to ban additional books during the previous ban.
*Military grade weapons, including automatic and burst fire versions of these semi-auto weapons are already banned.
Most of them, actually. But that’s not the point. The point is to ban scary looking firearms (which are the product of more advanced technology being applied to the the ‘furniture’ of the gun), since none of those criteria actually have an effect on the firearm itself.
Off the top of my head, though, Pistol Grips & folding/telescoping stocks are products of synthetic materials, which are very difficult to do with wooden stocks, and extremely unreliable if you do.
Oh, and keep in mind, the AWB didn’t actually ban any of those things.
You seem to be trying to support the AWB, so let me ask you a question…
What benefit does this bill add to society, so that we should give up the liberties that we have to allow it?
Absolute nonsense. All of those were avaialable on WWII era guns.
No, I’m not sure if I do think the AWB is a good idea. In fact my OP was saying that the AWB is an emotional reaction to a change in a sub-group of the gun culture from hunting animals to fantasizing about killing people. In general I support regulating guns to the same degree we regulate cars.
Using words like “liberty” is silly. I know you gun people think you are on the forefront of defending society against the government, but I see no evidence of that. I just think you like loud things that go bang.
Not one damn thing in this thread about The Average White Band???
Okay! OKAY!
I’m goin’, I’m GOIN’!
Q
You missed the ‘cheaper’ part?
There’s a reason the M1 Garand didn’t have a pistol grip, or detachable magazine (or flash hider). Because they were expensive, inefficient, hard-to-make-work-right-every-time objects.
A few issues.
You only regulate cars that are going to be driven in public. Off-road vehicles have zero regulations.
Historically, gun registration has overwhelmingly led to gun confiscation.
If your point is that you want anyone who wants to carry a firearm in public (CCW / Open Carry) to be licensed in the same way drivers are licensed – I couldn’t agree with you more.
They’re mutually exclusive? 
I like firearms for a variety of reasons, I don’t think that the loud bang is part of it, however it’s extremely difficult to reproduce the function of a firearm without the loud bang. On the times that I’ve gotten to use suppressors (sound), though, the enjoyment has been just the same.
But that’s beside the point, you’re painting with a brush far too wide for you, or anyone, to wield. The fact that guns, historically, have been the first thing to be restricted in totalitarian regimes does give many gun owners pause. However, that’s only one of the many reasons to keep firearms legal. Chief among them is that restricting firearm access does not keep criminals from attaining them or using them in crimes, and it definitely doesn’t lower the rate of violent crime.
Wow! You are* perfect* at not understanding analogies!
Gun laws are not about telling guns what not to do, they are about telling gun owners what not to do.
Under assault weapons bans, gun owners are still allowed to have guns that shoot quickly, hold a lot of ammo, use high-powered ammunition, etc., as long as they don’t LOOK like the stereotype of fast, powerful guns (however false that stereotype may be). Because guns that look like that scare some. people.
Under the law I described, men are still allowed to have gay lovers - as long as they don’t LOOK like the stereotype of gay men. Because men that look like that offend some people.
Jean shorts and mustaches don’t have rights. Gays do.
Pistol grips and collapsible stocks don’t have rights. Gun owners do.
What’s the difference?
A lot of children get warped by indecency in this country, and a portion of the public has persuaded their representatives to do something about it by regulating book covers. You may agree or disagree about what regulations make sense, but this is no great conspiracy.
Yeah, it isn’t a conspiracy because the groups who want to ban guns are very vocal about the fact. It’s right out in the open. It isn’t paranoia:
If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns...
--- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998. (Cited 3/05/2000)
Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun . There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year.
--- Senator John H. Chafee, Rhode Island (June 11, 1992, Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1991-1992)
Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers.
--- Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, New York (August 12, 1992, Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1991-1992, Daily Edition E2492-2493.)
The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.
--- New York Times, September 24, 1975
There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.
--- Michael Gartner, former NBC News President, USA Today, January 16, 1992
The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take step at a time and go for limited access first.
--- Joyner Sims, Florida State Health Dept., Deputy Commissioner, Chicago Tribune, November 7, 1993
Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens.
--- New York Times, December 21, 1993
We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence. Let's come to our senses before the whole country starts shooting itself up on all its Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon.
--- Washington Post, August 19, 1965
We are beyond the stage of restrictive licensing and uniform laws. We are at the point in time and terror when nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons.
--- Patrick V. Murphy, New York City Police Commissioner, December 7, 1970I just wish abortion rights advocates would stop being so paranoid that the right wing types are trying to sneak back door legislation through that will over turn RvW and ultimately make abortions illegal. I mean…that’s the stuff of paranoia. You hear the black helicopters…?
Seriously…by trying to portray folks who are concerned about this backdoor way in which people on the banning side are trying to sneak through legislation as ‘paranoid’ or ‘black helicopter’ CT nutters you show either that you are completely disingenuous or you know nothing about the subject and are really not worth debating.
And by trying to essentially mate anyone who disagrees with you on this subject with a supposed knee jerk acceptance of Bush’s policies ‘during the past 8 years’, you are attempting to poison the well…and you did a REALLY shitty job of it too boot!
Thanks for playing though…your parting gifts include the StraightDope Board game and this beautiful ceramic dog…
-XT
Yeah, I forgot all about those grip-less pistols that were around before plastic.
Those were metal frames, with wooden grips. And, once again, they were not easily, cheaply put on rifles.
I don’t see the point you’re trying to argue, here. I made a simple statement…
The materials are more advanced (synthetic versus wood or alloy), they are cheaper, and they are safer (in that they are more reliable).
Yes, you can have wooden pistol grips, as evidenced here, on thr AK designed firearms. However, they are less reliable (which is a factor in safety, when you’re talking about guns), by far, than their synthetic alternatives.
So, tell me, Dan, what point are you trying to make? I made your best point for you (the AK), and then noted why the proliferation of synthetic furniture on firearms is still a, like I said, cheaper, more advanced safer alternative.
Obviously gun makers use the best materials available at the time. You argued that adding military-like doodads to rifles came about because better materials became available. I think that is nonsense. You don’t start adding bayonet mounts or flash suppressors or pistol grips to civilian weapons because better materials are available, there were just no big technological hurdles there. They were added because there was a sea change in consumer taste towards guns that looked like they belonged on the battlefield.
Take a few mass shootings and mix in images of the perpetrators brandishing what look like “assault rifles” and you have a portion of society react in horror. They chose to regulate guns that looked like they had no use for hunting and were instead designed to kill people.
In most countries, and in some areas of the US, the idea of owning a high-capacity rifle that looks like it is designed to mow people down is obscene. It’s like having a replica of a Guillotine in your garage; maybe it shouldn’t be illegal, but you’d think that someone who did that was creepy.
So, the AWB is probably not that useful, but I think it was more a function of society expressing it’s distaste to the cheapening of human life. And that was what my OP was about; not whether the AWB is good or bad, but whether other people see it as a reaction to a change in taste away from guns designed to kill game toward guns designed to kill people.
Seriously, there are so many “Assault Weapons” and Lg. Cap. Mags. already in people’s possessions that it would take a near total permanent ban on semi-automatic rifles and large capacity (10+ rounds) magazines, mandatory turn-in and destruction, followed by a nationwide house-to-house search to get the ones that weren’t turned in.
Since there is no nationwide registry, the police would have to come into every single household in the U.S.A. and conduct a thorough search, including tearing into drywall and ripping out attic insulation to be certain.
Then the southern U.S. border would have to be sealed, in the manner of the Iron Curtain, to prevent smugglers from bring them up from Mexico, since, as the proponents of the AWB tell us, they are used in sufficient numbers of organized-crime related assaults and homicides to warrant such a ban in the first place.
But that’s not going to happen. And with NAFTA and the “super trade corridor” or whatever they call it, truckloads of these things could cross the border every day and no one would be the wiser.
So the criminals who want them and who want to use them will continue to do so.
And the people who proposed the AWB will then come back and tell us gun owners that we now have to surrender bolt- and lever-action rifles and pump-action shotguns, as well as handguns, in order to reduce crime and violence.
Repeat step 1.
That thread would be in Cafe Society.
I was expecting a holy war between Canonistas and Nikonians over which dSLRs have better automatic white balance.
Thanks, ** Gorsnak**!:D:D:D
Most everyone knows that I’m likely to “stumble” in here, not realizing where I am, start to participate and then can’t defend my position worth a shit, get pissed and stomp right back out! :D:D
That’s why - sometimes - when I go through NEW POSTS and see something that grabs my attention in GD that I can satirize, I do it.
I do the same thing in the Pit, and have promised to stay out of both, but what the hell, ya know? Just need to keep the old emotions in check a little better, ah reckon.
Okay! Back to your WMD thread, kiddos! 
Q