Re-institute the assault rifle ban?

Ikari said:

I still want the chance. I retain revolt as a proper and rightful tool of the People should the government no longer serve our needs and protect our freedom.

Freedom in general is always dangerous. It never has been, is not, and never will be safe. There are consequences and repercussions to freedom which do include some base amount of crime. We allow guns, we have the freedom to keep and bear arms, and as a result of that we will realize a certain amount of gun violence. Does that mean we remove the freedom? Surely if there were exactly 0 guns in America, there would be 0 gun crime. Or do we pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and understand that with freedom comes danger? And that aggregated over a large enough population, you will surely realize that danger. I'll go for the latter, rather be free than a slave. I'll take my random probabilities with people in general, when government is involved it's a guarantee.

Click to expand...

I agree in principal, but doesn't that same line of reasoning mean that we shouldn't infringe on the freedom to drink and drive? The maxim of "your freedom ends where mine begins" is a very solid one, and I think it applies to the issue of weapons, too. Let's say that a store is robbed by a criminal with an assault weapon. The owner was shot, too. Maybe he died from it. Clearly the freedom of the owner, employees, and patrons has been severely infringed. Now, if that weapon was purchased at a gun show, and then subsequently stolen, as so many guns that are used in violent crime are, wouldn't a small infringement of limiting the kinds of weapons that the original owner is allowed to buy a much smaller infringement than the stealing of property, injury, and possible death? Isn't the net freedom higher by limiting the guns?

The main part of the guns argument that tends to bother me is the resignation that violence will always be a part of society, so we should just accept it. I think there is always progress and improvements to be made. And I don't mean by just taking away freedoms. I mean changing social attitudes and technological improvements. I think there is far less need for weapons than some people think, and that if Americans collectively decided not to own so many guns, we would have a lot less violence.

Lutherf said:

Since a huge number of fatal car accidents are due to drunk drivers it seems that a ban on automobiles would be something that could work to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel. Decreasing the pool of cars available means less drunks killing people with cars. Since there doesn't seem to be any other way of solving the problem shouldn't we at least give it a try?

/s

Click to expand...

Actually, there are plenty of better methods. Self-driving cars are already being developed, and a much better public transit system would work to drastically decrease car accidents. But in the issue of guns, as it is pointed out over and over, criminals don't obey laws, so no restrictions on their actions will reduce the violence. Addressing the concerns that drive them to violence might do that, but that's huge sweeping economic reform, and people are afraid of that. Reducing the means is the only method left.

Paschendale said:

I agree in principal, but doesn't that same line of reasoning mean that we shouldn't infringe on the freedom to drink and drive?

Click to expand...

Well as anyone who has read my arguments on drinking and driving already knows, I am surely against the level of punishment and tactics generally used for this crime. But in general, DUI is legitimately a crime as the reckless abandon necessary for it unnecessarily risks property and lives of others. We just need to get the punishments down to properly reflect the crime.

Paschendale said:

The maxim of "your freedom ends where mine begins" is a very solid one, and I think it applies to the issue of weapons, too. Let's say that a store is robbed by a criminal with an assault weapon. The owner was shot, too. Maybe he died from it. Clearly the freedom of the owner, employees, and patrons has been severely infringed. Now, if that weapon was purchased at a gun show, and then subsequently stolen, as so many guns that are used in violent crime are, wouldn't a small infringement of limiting the kinds of weapons that the original owner is allowed to buy a much smaller infringement than the stealing of property, injury, and possible death? Isn't the net freedom higher by limiting the guns?

Click to expand...

No. Your 4th amendment right also puts us all at risk. Surely criminals hide their crime, their contraband and remain free longer because of it. In that time free, they are free to commit more crimes, kill more people, endanger the lot of us, yes? So isn’t the smaller infringement of not having the 4th buy much smaller infringement than stealing, injury, and possible death? This is your argument, and it is dangerous. No, government force against my rights is dangerous.

Here’s the thing. There are criminals out there. Some mean to do others harm. We all have certain probabilities associated with realizing that harm against ourselves. Their ability to affect our rights and infringe upon them is limited to the probability. A probability that I have yet to encounter in my tenure as a living creature. If the government, on the other hand, elicits its force to prevent the exercise of a right, I realize that 100% of the time. I am guaranteed to come under that force. So probability vs. guarantee, which is really better? I’ll take the probability.

Paschendale said:

The main part of the guns argument that tends to bother me is the resignation that violence will always be a part of society, so we should just accept it. I think there is always progress and improvements to be made. And I don't mean by just taking away freedoms. I mean changing social attitudes and technological improvements. I think there is far less need for weapons than some people think, and that if Americans collectively decided not to own so many guns, we would have a lot less violence.

Click to expand...

Yes, if we aggregate to large enough levels, we could realize a lot less violence. You can also say that if Americans collectively decided not to commit crimes, we would have a lot less violence as well. I’d love to believe that we’re at that point, but we’re not. Humans are still monkeys on the aggregate level. Any individual can be an intelligent and responsible person; but on the whole we’re rather monkey like. I hope we can further or evolution and be able to ascend past this; but we’re not there yet. And in the interim I am left to choose between random probability from an individual or a guaranteed infringement by the government. That probability is going to have to be pretty dang high before it excuses a guaranteed infringement.

Porchev said:

I know you hate Romney and all, but I think he is going to focus on so many other things related to the economy if elected, that he won't touch gun control.

Click to expand...

You have no proof he won't touch gun control seeing how he has flipped more times than a fish out of water.

And he is friends with his VP pick who is very pro 2nd Amendment, so I believe Ryan will have a positive impact in that area if it comes up.

Click to expand...

Unless Romney is impeached, assassinated or killed by some other cause or medically unable to serve as president the alleged beliefs or positions of the vice president is totally irrelevant.

Ryan is just bait to lure unsuspecting conservatives.

Paschendale said:

Since most guns that are bought and sold illegally begin as legally purchased guns, wouldn't this sort of thing be the only means of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals that could actually work?

Click to expand...

It had no effect on crime 1994-2004. So, no.

Paschendale said:

Now, if that weapon was purchased at a gun show, and then subsequently stolen, as so many guns that are used in violent crime are, wouldn't a small infringement of limiting the kinds of weapons that the original owner is allowed to buy a much smaller infringement than the stealing of property, injury, and possible death? Isn't the net freedom higher by limiting the guns?

Click to expand...

Simple ownership/posession of firearms by the law-abiding harms no one.
Simple ownership/posession of firearms by the law-abiding places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Thus, there is no constitutionally sound basis for the restriction of simple ownership/posession of firearms by the law abiding.

SKS are fun to shoot but you cannot hit anything with them on purpose. What business is it of anybody else's if I want to terrorize the grasshoppers in my field for fun. Poverty and addiction are the root of more crimes than weapons of any sort are and going after the guns do not address though one bit.

jamesrage said:

You have no proof he won't touch gun control seeing how he has flipped more times than a fish out of water.

Unless Romney is impeached, assassinated or killed by some other cause or medically unable to serve as president the alleged beliefs or positions of the vice president is totally irrelevant.

Ryan is just bait to lure unsuspecting conservatives.

Click to expand...

Last night was proof Obama will be working toward some more gun restrictions such as bringing back the "assault" weapons ban. IMO, Romney will stick to what he said, and again, he will have his hands full with so many other issues he won't bother with gun control anyway. And I disagree about Ryan being irrelevant. Some Presidents have worked closely with the VP on issues. Bush definitely did.

I think the choice between Obama or Romney is clear. The main issue is the economy and Romney is much more qualified to work economic issues with a more free market approach. And that will help everyone.

joko104 said:

With Obama saying he WILL pursue a ban on assault rifles and Romney might or might not, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Anyone that has looked into Obama's past knew he would do this and probably much more. But not in a first term, for he'd NEVER get reelected. The real 'bad' stuff is all for the second term.

Porchev said:

Last night was proof Obama will be working toward some more gun restrictions such as bringing back the "assault" weapons ban. IMO, Romney will stick to what he said, and again, he will have his hands full with so many other issues he won't bother with gun control anyway. And I disagree about Ryan being irrelevant. Some Presidents have worked closely with the VP on issues. Bush definitely did.

I think the choice between Obama or Romney is clear. The main issue is the economy and Romney is much more qualified to work economic issues with a more free market approach. And that will help everyone.

Click to expand...

You do realize that you are talking about a man who had flipped numerous issues? Don't ever buy any bridges or beach front property.

I use our military's definition of assault rifle. It's one designed for combat with medium rounds and has both semiautomatic and automatic available as an option. These rifles are already banned and have been since 1986. The exception is if you have a grandfathered one made before '86.

I don't believe either Romney or Obama will bring back the pseudo assault weapons ban of 1994.

joko104 said:

In the debate, Obama said he wants to re-institute the assault rifle ban. Romney said he will pursue no new gun legislation, but then said he would pursue a bi-partisan effort for some new gun laws (a contradiction).

The essence of what "assault rifle" means in legislation means foremost limiting the bullet capacity of the weapon or magazine (bullet holder). It also tends to then include more specifics such as how rapidly a magazine can be replaced in the design, specific construction design limits on the trigger group, and other specific construction details, and import restrictions of firearms (ie Made in America fire arms or parts legal, but if identical made elsewhere not legal).

With Obama saying he WILL pursue a ban on assault rifles and Romney might or might not, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Which of congress' enumerated powers do you think could be used to ban assault weapons?

Lachean said:

2nd Amendment issues aside, prohibition still doesn't work.

Either way, I'm getting an AK and an AR in a few weeks while I still can.

Click to expand...

Barack Obama, the greatest gun salesmen the world has ever seen.

joko104 said:

In the debate, Obama said he wants to re-institute the assault rifle ban. Romney said he will pursue no new gun legislation, but then said he would pursue a bi-partisan effort for some new gun laws (a contradiction).

The essence of what "assault rifle" means in legislation means foremost limiting the bullet capacity of the weapon or magazine (bullet holder). It also tends to then include more specifics such as how rapidly a magazine can be replaced in the design, specific construction design limits on the trigger group, and other specific construction details, and import restrictions of firearms (ie Made in America fire arms or parts legal, but if identical made elsewhere not legal).

With Obama saying he WILL pursue a ban on assault rifles and Romney might or might not, what do you think?

Click to expand...

its silly making this poll anonymous. Obama has already said he wants that ban reinstated.

Luna Tick said:

I use our military's definition of assault rifle. It's one designed for combat with medium rounds and has both semiautomatic and automatic available as an option. These rifles are already banned and have been since 1986. The exception is if you have a grandfathered one made before '86.

I don't believe either Romney or Obama will bring back the pseudo assault weapons ban of 1994.

Click to expand...

so Obama lied in that debate

Fisher said:

SKS are fun to shoot but you cannot hit anything with them on purpose. What business is it of anybody else's if I want to terrorize the grasshoppers in my field for fun. Poverty and addiction are the root of more crimes than weapons of any sort are and going after the guns do not address though one bit.

Click to expand...

interesting-I had no problem hitting bowling pins at 100 yards with an SKS from a sitting position (no sling, no shooting jacket)

Paschendale said:

Since most guns that are bought and sold illegally begin as legally purchased guns, wouldn't this sort of thing be the only means of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals that could actually work? Decreasing the pool of weapons means decreased access. Obviously, many who want guns legally don't want to lose that, but if there is no other way to deal with the consequences, then isn't such a course the right one? Unless the consequences of armed violent criminals aren't really that bad. But it sort of seems like complaining about health problems while eating gallons of ice cream.

Click to expand...

why should honest people be punished because dishonest ones violate other laws?

My problem with banning "that type rifle" is that, if I were to own a rifle (for hunting, sport or defense), it would be "that type". Having served, that's the rifle I know how to use. Sure, I could learn a bolt action, musket or flint-lock but that's kinda ridiculous. If I want it rifle, it's gonna be the type I learned how to use, repair and maintain. Think I can't hunt, sport or defend with it? Hah.

Sorry, I'm not gonna learn how to use some 20th century antique. To me, a rifle is an ar-15 platform. Welcome to the modern world.

ecofarm said:

My problem with banning "that type rifle" is that, if I were to own a rifle (for hunting, sport or defense), it would be "that type". Having served, that's the rifle I know how to use. Sure, I could learn a bolt action, musket or flint-lock but that's kinda ridiculous. If I want it rifle, it's gonna be the type I learned how to use, repair and maintain. Think I can't hunt, sport or defend with it? Hah.

Sorry, I'm not gonna learn how to use some 20th century antique. To me, a rifle is an ar-15 platform. Welcome to the modern world.

Click to expand...

aftermarket and gunsmith support as well as ammo is far easier with military styled weapons.

that is why 5.56 MM ammo is far cheaper than the almost identical .222

Hey wait a minute. This is a gun thread, right? Where's haymarket?

By the way, did you know he supports the 2nd amendment?

TurtleDude said:

aftermarket and gunsmith support as well as ammo is far easier with military styled weapons.

that is why 5.56 MM ammo is far cheaper than the almost identical .222

Click to expand...

parts are far more common. the parts for an AR 15 (which has a commonality with the Military rifles of about 92% or so) are far far cheaper than say for similarly engineered non US issue weapons (like the AR-180 or the Beretta AR 70)

Federalist said:

Hey wait a minute. This is a gun thread, right? Where's haymarket?

By the way, did you know he supports the 2nd amendment?

Click to expand...

NOt a version any of us are familiar with

Sorry but I like to shoot my guns on the weekend, including my AK. I haven't killed anybody and am not planning on it. It's fun. The government shouldn't stop me from having fun.

Sonic said:

Sorry but I like to shoot my guns on the weekend, including my AK. I haven't killed anybody and am not planning on it. It's fun. The government shouldn't stop me from having fun.

Click to expand...

you can still own a semi auto only version of the AK-47 in kalifornia? I know they cannot currently be sold there now

Porchev said:

I have this exact gun in my closet right now:

Click to expand...

And I have that exact carpet in my house right now! Okay, not really sure where I was going with that.

I think any kind of weapon ban based primarily on form rather than function is completely retarded. Though I've already got my AR-15, so it doesn't bother me as much as it might have last year.

TurtleDude said:

interesting-I had no problem hitting bowling pins at 100 yards with an SKS from a sitting position (no sling, no shooting jacket)

Click to expand...

The ones I have used may have come from the bargain bin. IDK. I've never owned one, but several people I know have/had them and let me shoot them. It seemed like my hit to miss ration was pretty low but I was always standing or kneeling (usually standing).