Yes, the argument is circular. However, (and I’ve just been skimming this thread recently because gun threads can become so tiresome) I don’t think anyone is saying it’s okay for bazookas to be banned because they’re already banned. As I said in my first post, I am in favour of restricting such things as bazookas because you only have to be close to injure or kill; unlike a firearm, which must be pointed and the projectile must hit the individual target.
The same arguments being put forth here in opposition to the AWB might well have been applied to the 1934 Act. The only difference that I can see is that the AWB banned firearms based on cosmetics, while the 1934 law banned them on function. Still, I’d be willing to bet that more machine guns were not used in crimes prior to 1934 than were being used by the gangsters. However, since the 1934 law was passed and has been in effect for seven decades, it seems pointless to argue one way or the other whether it should have been passed. The salient point is that the firearms banned by the AWD were and are functionally different from the firearms banned in 1934 and that people who confuse the AWB firearms with machine guns do not know the difference.
Taking a very long view, a case could be made for the ‘slippery slope’. First they ban machine guns, then they ban guns that look like machine guns…
Personally, I think it would be fun to have my own MP5. As I’ve said in other threads, I don’t feel the need to protect myself with a firearm. And, as I’ve also said elsewhere, I don’t hunt. If I had an MP5, the only thing I’d do with it is poke holes in paper (very quickly) at a shooting range. Or modify it for use as a blank-firing prop in a film.
Do you really believe this? Lets say that someone, knowing about your attitude, break into your home tomorrow to take all your stuff. This person, being a home invading psyco, can only be stopped when he is killed. You wouldn’t kill to stop him, so you let him take it? Would you call the cops? If so, they would certainly kill to stop him, so that stain goes back onto your soul again.
I understand the desire for this level of pacifism from some people. However, I just don’t see how it would work in reality. If you truly have this attitude, how is it that you have any stuff left?
Its not pacifism. Pacifism is an entirely admirable position, and I disagree only slightly. But one must resist evil, I hold this truth to be self-evident. One must be willing to undertake violence in desperate situations That one never undertakes aggressive violence is a given, and that defensive violence be held to very strict standards: to protect the innocent, the helpless, or the beloved. Given those parameters, I’d blow away a miscreant without batting an eye.
The protection of property does not meet these standards. Your morality may vary.
If you want to know what types of weapons, extended ammo clips and conversion kits are easily available, go to your local newsstand and pick up a little weekly called Shotgun News . There’s much more in the weekly itself then there is in their online ads, btw.
Pretty much as I have stated. There is no need for more gun laws. If, and that’s a big if, I could be asured that confiscation isn’t the next step, I would agree to registration. But that can’t be done. Ten or twenty years down the road…. who knows. Because of the anti-gun folks, I am against registration.
Ehh. OK…
How?
How do you demonstrate pre-existing knowledge? I’ve never purchased a gun, I own 8. I have been shooting for 35 years.
How shall I demonstrate ‘pre-existing knowledge’? I know what you’re trying to say, but it’s unrealistic.
People like you, Max, are the reason that I will think long and hard before I register my guns.
Max: as one of the few rational, thoughtful posters thus far, I thought that your post deserved it’s own response, separate from the sarkiness I’ve heaped upon the assholes and idiots I’ve been doing my level best to insult
(1) The 2nd. Amendment applys to arms, not ordnance. Arms are defined as being carried and operated by one person. Ordnance fits several criteria separate from that, but tends to fall most heavily upon two:
1). operated/employed by a crew of two or more people, and
2). has an “area effect,” that is, is designed to kill more than one person per use/operation.
The NRA has never lobbied, and never been an organization is support of, keeping and bearing ordnance.
(2) Many of those are good ideas in theory, except for two things:
1). Such measures have been successfully used elsewhere to enact total bans and confiscations
2). Too many American legislators have openly espoused admiration of those other places in their successfull employment of such “incremental approaches,” and a desire to adopt similar approaches here in the U.S. to first ban hadguns, and then all guns.
(1). Yes! Exactly!
(2) Not entirely correct. For instance, when the Armor Piercing Bullet Ban was first introduced, it was written (by anti-gun people) so broadly as to ban almost every centerfire cartridge made. The NRA came into the process and had it re-written to ban (for public sale, of course; cops and the military still use them) bullets specifically designed and manufactured with enhanced attributes for armor piercing capabilities.
(3) Your wish has already been granted; you just described the Federal (thus, minimum) regulatory scheme of firearms in the U.S.A.
Not too sure about bazookas, but machineguns are, with the exception of a few states, legal but heavily regulated. There’s a great Machinegun Shootoff near Ft. Knox Kentucky every year, and always draws an enthusiastic crowd (of shooters, and mere spectators).
Because the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms, NOT ordnance.
Correct; the cannon must be “demilled (sp?),” that is, rendered non-functional. IIRC, it typically involves removing the firing pin and plugging the barrel with something (steel, cement, etc.,).
IMO, GWB said that to play the political game. IMO, he knew it wouldn’t be renewed by Congress, so he cold safely espouse his, “if it’s passed, I’ll sign” platform to appease the hand-wringers without having to actually worry about having to follow through with it.
Oh yeah: you’re a Dick, and one of the biggest problems with The Straight Dope.
Okay, I retract the “biggest problem” statemt. But you’re still a Dick.
Of course they’re used in crime! And supported by the NRA, too! Didn’t you see Lethal Weapon 4? Mel Gibson and Danny Glover said so. Hell, it was shot in L.A.! Man, you west-coast people can’t even be bothered to pay attention to what happens in your own town. :rolleyes:
Get bent, asswipe. It’s not an admission of being wrong, it’s an exhultation of victory over those who would shamelessly use an incremental process (slippery slope) to achieve their political agenda.
Then shut the fuck up and fuck off, asshat.
Firearms in private hands are used predominantly for hunting and target shooting in the U.S., dickhead. You don’t have single fucking clue, and YMMV (the alternate meaning).
Yeah, that’s working wonders in Mexico and Brazil. :rolleyes: And how often do you go hunting? When was the last time you went hunting? What were you hunting, and what with? A handgun is fairly useful to hunters.
The “State Director” was quoting Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who collected statistics of one crime-ridden county in Washington state over a few months and then drew an erroneous (and completely discredited in the Academic community) conclusion of “43 times more likely.” Anti-gun types have used that number relentlessly and shamelessly to scare people just like you with.
There’s several times more deaths from accidental falls that accidental shootings in any given year.
Neither the NRA or any other pro-gun rights organization was fighting for the right to allow criminals to commit crimes, or shoot police in the performance of their duties. Go dry-hump your strawman somewhere else.
And do you have any evidence (except for your prejudice?) that any of those ads are being responded to by criminals? That criminal transactions are taking place? That Shotgun News is in fact facilitating criminals and crime by its very existence?
No, you don’t; you just glurged it up there in a shameless attempt to try to draw some shaky parallel between Class III dealers/buyers and crime.
You’re a Moderator of a message board supposedly dedicated to “stamping out ignorance,” and here you are purveying it! If I were Cecil, I’d personally come to your home, kick your ass, and take your computer away from you before you could do any more harm to my namesake messsage board.
You’re one of the biggest problems with The Straight Dope.
ExTank, I don’t recall mentioning, or even hinting that criminals are getting their weapons using Shotgun News, so back the fuck off. If I have something to say, I damn well say it-anything else you’ve happened to read in my post came from your overactive imagination. Do you think that my giving factual information as to the availability of weapons, extended clips and conversion kits does nothing to dispell misinformation? Is there some reason that people shouldn’t refer to this factual information when discussing what is and isn’t available to the public?
I’m not familiar with the nuances of belligerent buttmunch culture. When he calls friend Doggy Knees a “dick” with a capital “D”, is he making some sort of phallic inference? Perhaps a obscure sort of flattery?
Except that you left out some factual information.
For example, you can’t just call up an advertiser in Shotgun News and order a gun. The seller has to have a signed copy of your Federal Firearms License.
The machine guns are only available to Law Enforcement and Class III dealers, not to just anyone who wants one.
‘Conversion kits’ are regulated as machine guns. Check the fine print on M-16 conversion parts, and you’re likely to see something to the effect of ‘You must send a copy of your license.’
Machine gun ‘kits’ are available, and anyone can buy them… Except you can’t buy a receiver. You can buy a metal tube with markings on it, but if you cut the tube, then you have committed a Federal crime.
‘Extended clips’ (they’re called magazines) are not illegal.
I didn’t leave jack shit out. Both the website and the weekly tell you what is available to the public and what is available to liscensed officials-I merely provided a link to a site that supplies all the information you need to determine for yourself if certain weapons and weapons parts are/are not too readily available.
I didn’t mention criminals.
I didn’t mention gun control.
I only provided a link so that people can find out the facts for themselves. A link that is anti-gun control. Ex-Tank, you can either apologize or fuck off-this isn’t the first time you read things in my posts that weren’t there.
You don’t think it’s just a little disingenuous to use the phrase easily available without letting people – who may be among those who don’t know the difference between an ‘assault rifle’ and an ‘assault weapon’ – that licenses are required for firearms and the machine guns they may see in the paper are tightly regulated? :dubious:
You are absolutely right. I should have included a link showing what the actual requirements are for obtaining a class 3 license, along with all the advantages of obtaining said license. Here you go.
It looks as if I qualify for this license if I wish to pony up a couple of hundred bucks for the first three years, but the money you save more than makes up for it.
Depending on where you live and what class of dealer you wish to become, it can range from serious pain in the ass to impossible to get your FFL. (Not counting C&R, but that’s a different beast.) The BATF needs to approve it, and that pends on your local LEO chief signing off on it.
I just don’t want people thinking it’s a simple matter to become a FFL…
