Well, looks like the Democrats want another "assault weapons" ban

Great Debates
1

If you’ve ever wanted a rifle with such dangerous, homicidal, terrorist features as a pistol grip, a detachable magazine, a bayonet lug, or a barrel shroud (“that shoulder thing that goes up,” as moron Carolyn McCarthy so eloquently said) - now is the time to get it, because we’re likely to have a Democrat president this year. And as if their party weren’t already blatantly anti-gun enough, here’s a little excerpt from their 2008 platform draft (full text here -PDF)

12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but
15 we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together
16 to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
17 loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
18 ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly
19 and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional
20 right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Bolding mine.

Reasonable restrictions.

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?

You thick-headed, ignorant morons. If the Assault Weapons ban is a reasonable restriction, I am the Queen of England and I’ll eat my goddamn crown. This is a ban that is based totally on false premises, abject ignorance of firearms of the most egregious variety, and a campaign of misinformation and deception that would make Josef Stalin hang himself in the Red Square with a suicide note reading “I’m a worthless nobody.” That’s right. Because if a rifle has a bayonet lug, for a bayonet that will in 99 percent of cases NEVER be affixed to the damn rifle, it’s an assault weapon. Because if it has a pistol grip, that allows it to be held more comfortably, it’s an assault weapon. Because if it has a folding stock - oh my sweet lord, the stock folds over to the side! It’s…scary! - it’s an assault weapon. If the rifle has a barrel shroud - you know, that shoulder thing that goes up - which in reality does nothing more sinister than prevent you from burning your hand on the rifle’s barrel - it’s a goddamn assault weapon.

Oh, the unbelievable, unbelievable stupidity.

Well, you can see the whole bill here. If you know anything about guns, it’ll make you weep:

The M1 CARBINE?!?!

Are you kidding me?

That little underpowered thing that all of our grandpas and uncles carried in World War II and Korea, with a 15 round magazine, is a goddamn assault weapon? Could someone please explain what is “reasonable” about this?

Lest you think this is some fringe thing that has no chance of ever passing, here are all the other sponsors:

[as of 2008-07-05]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D-FL]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D-MA]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]

Well, that does it. This lands on Obama’s desk and I guarantee you he will sign it, because the guy obviously doesn’t know anything about guns. He never served in the military, and he hasn’t done any of the little photo-op things out hunting with a shotgun or whatever, which makes me think that he doesn’t even care about trying to appeal to gun owners. He pushed for the banning of all semi-automatic weapons in Illinois and is against concealed carry - obviously he doesn’t know an M-16 from a Marlin 60.

The guy is going to be Clinton all over again for gun rights. Mark my words. (Funny…how many crimes are committed every year with these "assault weapons?)

I’m voting for McCain.

2

How about murders within the last twelve months? A very quick search turned up:

nine dead

three dead

one dead policeman

another three

3

You can NEVER trust the articles in newspapers or news sites when it comes to gun crime.

In your first article, the crimes were committed with an “SKS assault rifle.” First of all, an assault rifle is by definition automatic. The SKS is not. I know - I own one. It has a ten round fixed magazine - not detachable. It doesn’t have a pistol grip or folding stock. Even by the absurd standards of the AWB, the SKS is not and never has been considered an assault rifle by anyone who knows anything about guns.

The second article just mentions a nameless “assault rifle.” Now, with the error in that first article, how am I supposed to trust the second one?

Third article - again with the “SKS assault rifle.” They also call it “high powered.” What the fuck is high powered about it? Nothing. I know. I own one. It fires the 7.62x39 round which is nothing compared to your grandpa’s Weatherby hunting rifle. Bullshit, bullshit, pure Grade-A bullshit.

News reporters tend to know little to nothing about guns. Trust me, I read the news, and the errors I see on a regular basis with regard to firearms are ridiculous enough to make me laugh out loud.

4

Mr. Towers, seems this would be better served in the Pit. There isn’t much middle ground once the teeth go through the tail.

5

No, I’m guessing you want it to be in the Pit so that people can pile on me, swear at me, and call me names. There’s no reason for it to go there. It’s a political issue - I’m interested to hear some discourse on it. My OP might have harsh language but it’s not a rant - there’s a point I’m trying to get across and I’m using evidence and research to back it up.

ETA - I claimed that “assault weapons” are rarely used to commit crimes. Someone came in with a refutation of that, which I knocked out of the park because the articles were full of shit. (This is nothing personal against the poster - I’m sure he, like most of the supporters of the AWB, just don’t know a lot about guns.) So - there’s a debate. If someone wants to come in with better evidence, let them.

6

It’s unlikely I personally will swear at you and call you names in any fora. Sure you have a debate. Just seems a rapid descent into sound and fury.

7

Well, maybe, but I tend to think of the Pit as mainly a place for posters to condemn other posters, despite any pretensions otherwise. Sure, people pit concepts and things, and sometimes everyone agrees with them, but more often it degenerates into name calling and personal fights between posters.

While I have a reputation for speaking harshly, and sometimes espousing unpopular viewpoints, one thing I’ve tried very hard to stand by in all my time here is to never get personal with any other posters. No matter what the debate is about and how vehemently we may degree, or how crude my language may be, I always try to be a gentleman with regard to the other people here, because I just don’t believe in getting into personal feuds. I like and respect every single person here, and I want to keep it that way. So I would rather this not be moved to the Pit.

In any case, I really want to return to the topic at hand. Something I feel it’s necessary to bring up, is that the ignorance about firearms in those articles linked to (“SKS assault rifle” - hah!) directly parallels the ignorance of firearms on the part of the AWB’s sponsors. It’s all about a lack of understanding and information. And the media doesn’t help by writing shitty articles that mis-label rifles.

8

I think he raises valid points. How are we supposed to trust legislators to make responsible laws for us to abide by if the law(s) in question is/are drawn up utilizing false information about weapons?

I think responsible laws governing rifles and handguns are necessary, provided that the laws are enacted based around the principle that they are factually accurate and are aimed (heh) at preventing weapons from being obtained illegally or be felons.

9

BY felons. Not “be” felons! I would never advocate being a felon!
:wink:

10

Load the clips 'n laat waai.

11

Would you like some tea to wash that down with, mum?

12

I keep hearing people say that “the Democrats have learned that gun control is a loser issue, so they’ve stopped pushing it.” And that “Al Gore would have won if it weren’t for the issue of gun control.” If this is true, why is a renewal of the AWB on the Dem’s agenda? Why aren’t they afraid to touch that, as people keep implying?

The Democrats have not given up on gun control. What they have done, is taken it behind the scenes, buried it under other stuff so it doesn’t get as much publicity and attention. But that doesn’t mean they’ve forgotten about it. They’re just going to be more and more dishonest about it now, and try to use weasel words like “reasonable restrictions” and “common sense” while still clinging to this unbelievably ignorant, ill-informed, pig headed perception of firearms and “assault weapons” that they clearly have absolutely no clue about.

13

I agree with you. The Dems should just drop it already. It’s old.
Painfully restrictive laws on gun ownership only make it difficult or impossible for responsible would-be gun owners to obtain a weapon. Criminals can pretty much get a gun whenever if they have money and know somebody.

14

I feel that any attempt to ban the M1 Carbine might hit constitutional limits, now. Should be fun to see.

15

Hell I’ll take a stab at this. I’ve served in the USAF, I am a gun owner,(handgun), am not a gun enthusiast, and see no issue with this at all.

Argent Towers, Where exactly would you draw the line on private ownership of weaponry? The language in the constitution is less than clear on this issue, but one could easily interpret it to mean that there are no restrictions other than one’s ability to locate and purchase weaponry of any class.

I have yet to hear one convincing argument for the necessity of owing one of these weapons by a private citizen. Yes, it is true that there are handguns more powerful then a few of those listed, and I agree that a few of those models, upon further research, seem a bit antiquated to place on a ban list. Who, however NEEDS one of those weapons other than authorized civil or federal military or crime enforcement?

Your post seems based on the old slippery-slope argument, and less upon a common sense approach to firearms ownership by the general public. MOST people aren’t collectors or recreational target shooters. A great many of them have no business whatsoever owning any firearm, much less AK-47s. A Ban is heavy-handed, but the simplest way to curb the dissemination of weapons into the hands of idiots.

16

Argent, being myself quite ignorant of the specifics of particular gun types I, like much of the public I think, have always perceived probably what was intended with “assault weapons” - big bad ones that have no place for hunting and are designed for efficient killing of larger numbers of people. Clearly you and many others who know much more about guns believe that those are not the guns covered under the “assault weapons” ban.[ol]
[li]Would believe that the intent, as I have expressed it, would be a “reasonbable restriction” if it was phrased in a more intelligent manner?[/li][li]How would you phrase it to accomplish that intent?[/li][/ol]

As to the political implication … we’ll see what actually gets into the planks but really, the planks have long ceased meaning anything other than a means for party activists to express themselves then quickly forgotten. Agreed that “assault weapons” are not the cause of most gun related deaths and that such a ban is political posturing and stupid political posturing at that.

17

Why does the label “assault weapon” have to apply to anything other than an automatic weapon beyond a certain caliber (.22)? I have a few friends that are former Marines that all own semi-auto AR-15’s, and they are all very responsible gun owners. And they hunt with their AR’s when they can, too, mostly nuisance Coyotes threatening farmer’s livestock/coops.

Your own argument that there are pistols that are far more powerful than many rifles makes my case for me. If an AR-15 or AK-47 is illegal even as a semi-auto, then why would a .50 cal Desert Eagle or a Ruger .480mag be legal just because they are pistols? I would actually argue the opposite, if it came down to it. No handguns because they are concealable, and free reign on semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

Although I do support conceal and carry laws in real life, and responsible ownership of both handguns, shotties and rifles of all stripes. I also don’t own any guns as I have little kids in the house.

18

You don’t even have an issue with the definition of an “assault weapon” used? Why is a pistol grip so dangerous that a weapon with a pistol grip should be banned, when an identical weapon with a shotgun-style grip would not? Or why the existence of an automatic pistol means that a similar, semi-automatic, pistol should be banned?

19

What you think I need is not a sound basis for enacting public policy. Hell, I don’t need to own any more land than maybe a quarter acre or so, but I own over 80 acres. So, because I don’t need it, shall the government prohibit me from owning it? I don’t need to buy that candy bar to eat, so shall the government prohibit me from owning it?

The government should not enact laws based on what some politician or bureaucrat thinks I need. I get to determine what I need and what I want. The government should make sure that I don’t harm my neighbor or, if I do, punish me for it. It’s not my mom, though, and just because something isn’t a necessity doens’t mean I don’t have a right to buy it.

A great many, huh? How many? How many crimes are committed by people with firearms each year? How many firearm owners are there? I think if you’d do some research you’d see that the vast, vast majority of gun owners don’t commit crimes. Saying that most people aren’t collectors or recreational target shooters implies that most people are using guns for criminal purposes. That is simply false.

20

What I have noticed, over and over, is that a certain set (read: seemingly most of them) of anti-gunners not only have no idea of what guns do, how they work, and what kinds there are, but are also personally afraid of them, as if the gun was going to jump up and bte them, and had never any experience with using one or even touching it. They demand the right to tell all those of us who do posess firearms what we can and cannot have based solely on their uneducated emotional reaction.