[W:711] 2/3rds of Americans want an assault weapons ban

Ahlevah said:

Pretty damn good for most of our history. After WWII we had millions of military surplus M1 Garands and M1 Carbines with bayonet lugs and extended 30-round magazines and high schools with gun clubs and no one had ever heard of a school shooting. Then something changed. What is it that is making people--mostly younger men--go bonkers? Why so much anger and hatred? Violence in media? If that's true, what's up with the Koreans and Japanese? They're not happy unless there's lots of action (death and blood) in their movies and video games, and yet these societies are relatively passive. Guns are restricted, but they have other means of killing people--knives, motor vehicles, improvised explosives, etc.

View attachment 67262075

Click to expand...

I wish I knew. My personal thoughts are loneliness, alienation, broken families, the internet, densensitization to violence, etc. Similar to what you said, though, the US has those things and violent media in common with other countries, so what about American society produces so many psychopaths who murder masses of people?

Logician Man said:

@ thread OP. It appears that most Americans now want to re-visit things like background checks. It's the responsible thing to do for the general public safety. Those who have nothing to hide should have no problem with thorough background checks.

Click to expand...

I think nearly every reasonable person is ok with background checks. The hardcore 2A people are worried about a slippery slope though, so many of them oppose all or most gun regulations whether "reasonable" or not.

RedSunRising said:

I think nearly every reasonable person is ok with background checks. The hardcore 2A people are worried about a slippery slope though, so many of them oppose all or most gun regulations whether "reasonable" or not.

Click to expand...

Agreed...the operative word is indeed 'reasonable."

More people are killed each year by stabbing than by assault style weapons. The last assault gun ban did nothing to statistically reduce the murder by gun rate. Another assault gun ban won't help either A lot of people around here hunt varmints and feral hogs with AR 15s . I own a AR 15 and I'd give it up if it would solve the problem. But taking guns from law abiding people will not solve the problem. An assault ban will not work its just something politicians want so they can say the are doing something even if what they did did not work to solve the problem. I prefer a Red Flag law. I personally tried to have my daughter in law's guns removed after she had a forced psychiatric hospitalization for alcohol and drug abuse and for threatening others with a gun. I was unsuccessful in having her gun permit and her guns removed .A good red flag law might be helpful. I do see how red flag laws could be abused however.

Nap said:

#1 - True, I don't really see any other way to define such weapons as the labels some seem to apply are rather arbitrary like in the case of an AR-15 as a "military weapon" or "weapon of war" when the semi-automatic AR15 has never been issued or have the same capabilities of similar rifles used in war. Even the M1 Garand you mentioned earlier while similar in the fact that they are both semi-automatic there is a difference in caliber. The AR15 uses a .223 round rather than the larger, more lethal round of the M1 at .308. Some states even ban the use of .223 round for hunting larger game because it has less chance of producing a clean kill in comparison to the larger rounds. I'm not sure there is a rifle used by the military that uses a round that small without select fire.

2. The burden is on you to justify why they should be illegal. As far as trucks go, none of those regulations prevent someone from intentionally taking their vehicle and plowing through a crowd of people.

Click to expand...

#1 But if the point is that it is arbitrary to use the term "military weapon," or "assault weapon" then you should recognize the arbitrary use of military terms such as " pistol" by the pro-gun crowd. Since you mention the AR-15, here is an AR-15-style pistol
The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter's Gun : NPR
So, obviously both sides want to use arbitrary terms in a way that fits their agenda

#2 I disagree that I have a heavier burden of proof that you because there is no SCOTUS decision to tell us that possession of assault weapons is a constitutional right. In fact, we had a ban in the past which was never overturned by the Supreme Court. So, it seems that up until now this is a matter of legislative policy and both parties in the legislation have the burden to support their position.

Glitch said:

Which is why it is a deliberate lie. Consider the source.

Click to expand...

Well, the headline is from CNN but the source of the poll is FOX

jimbo said:

The Uzi was the Chinese civilian version. I'm not aware it was ever sold to any military. It was semi auto.

Similarly the AK. A commercial semi auto version.

So yes, from a catalog.

Click to expand...

Read again the law. The section bans not a particular type of Uzi.

Text - H.R.3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as--
``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;
``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
``(iv) Colt AR-15;
``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
``(vii) Steyr AUG;
``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to)
the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

This reads like a ban of any model regardless if it was a Chinese copy or a Finnish copy and regardless of even the caliber. So, if one was trying to create an AK-47 of a different caliber, this weapons would have been banned also as a result of this section of the law. Sounds very broad. And yes, anything that is commercial will be part of a catalogue. It is obvious though that the choice of weapons was not a random one.

Tlrmln said:

Indeed one can, but for it to even begin to make any rational sense, one would have to propose banning all detachable magazine-fed, semiautomatic firearms. Dems won't do this because they know that it would fail and promptly get most of them voted out of office. So instead, they propose a useless, feel-good measure to pacify their sheep.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily:

One can combine a law that is more broad for semiautomatic firearms with a law that is limiting high capacity magazines.

pamak said:

#1 But if the point is that it is arbitrary to use the term "military weapon," or "assault weapon" then you should recognize the arbitrary use of military terms such as " pistol" by the pro-gun crowd. Since you mention the AR-15, here is an AR-15-style pistol
The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter's Gun : NPR
So, obviously both sides want to use arbitrary terms in a way that fits their agenda

#2 I disagree that I have a heavier burden of proof that you because there is no SCOTUS decision to tell us that possession of assault weapons is a constitutional right. In fact, we had a ban in the past which was never overturned by the Supreme Court. So, it seems that up until now this is a matter of legislative policy and both parties in the legislation have the burden to support their position.

Click to expand...

1 - WTF are you even talking about? Calling a semi-automatic AR-15 a "weapon of war" or "military" is arbitrary because it has never been used by any military and is marketed purely to the civilian market as the select fire version (M16) is for the military. The entire point is to use language to create fear in the population that these are more dangerous than other firearms and that is just simply not reality.

2 - Currently they are legal, it is typically the responsibility of those advocating for banning something to come up with a rational reason to implement such legislation. My position is there is no need for such a ban as they will not accomplish anything other than annoy law abiding citizens.

Nap said:

1 - WTF are you even talking about? Calling a semi-automatic AR-15 a "weapon of war" or "military" is arbitrary because it has never been used by any military and is marketed purely to the civilian market as the select fire version (M16) is for the military. The entire point is to use language to create fear in the population that these are more dangerous than other firearms and that is just simply not reality.

2 - Currently they are legal, it is typically the responsibility of those advocating for banning something to come up with a rational reason to implement such legislation. My position is there is no need for such a ban as they will not accomplish anything other than annoy law abiding citizens.

Click to expand...

#1 I was clear that I have an issue with your selective view regarding which side makes arbitrary classifications of weapons. I gave you a link (The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter's Gun : NPR) and I will ask: Is this an example of an arbitrary classification of a weapon as a pistol? If you accept that it is, then you should not be surprised if the other side also uses some arbitrary classifications in a way that supports its cause.

#2 Currently they are legal but but you have also a burden to support the argument that the law will not accomplish anything. It seems that for the gun-control side the argument is that we need to address the increase of mass shootings we observe in the last decade (Active shooter incident have become more common in U.S. in recent years | Pew Research Center) by making it more difficult for people to get weapons that can reach a high effective rate of fire



Anyway the conversation should start with the type of law we are debating: For example, Is it a law that includes banning higher capacity magazines or not? And what about new technologies for smart firearms like fingerprint recognition?

And something else: what about the law that limits gun violence research that may be used to support gun control? Why are the pro2A guys afraid of such federal research?

lEtS bAn A gUn CuZ iT hAz Uh HaNdLe


Liberal logic, folks.

Parrish said:

The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter's Gun : NPR

Click to expand...

Irrelevant

TurtleDude said:

You should know by now when you are being played.

Click to expand...

I know the drill. I just thought it was cute that he ended up playing himself.

pamak said:

#1 I was clear that I have an issue with your selective view regarding which side makes arbitrary classifications of weapons. I gave you a link (The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter's Gun : NPR) and I will ask: Is this an example of an arbitrary classification of a weapon as a pistol? If you accept that it is, then you should not be surprised if the other side also uses some arbitrary classifications in a way that supports its cause.

#2 Currently they are legal but but you have also a burden to support the argument that the law will not accomplish anything. It seems that for the gun-control side the argument is that we need to address the increase of mass shootings we observe in the last decade (Active shooter incident have become more common in U.S. in recent years | Pew Research Center) by making it more difficult for people to get weapons that can reach a high effective rate of fire



Anyway the conversation should start with the type of law we are debating: For example, Is it a law that includes banning higher capacity magazines or not? And what about new technologies for smart firearms like fingerprint recognition?

And something else: what about the law that limits gun violence research that may be used to support gun control? Why are the pro2A guys afraid of such federal research?

Click to expand...

I think I would have to ask how is it you think restricting legal gun owners rights is going to solve this?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Bodhisattva said:

Anything other than a shotgun, bolt action rifle or a pistol should be banned. Simple. Easy. Done.

Click to expand...

What is 'simple'...'easy'...'done'...is that you have managed to expose yourself and the people that liked your comments as promoting simple minded rhetoric that simply does nothing. 13 of the last 16 'mass shootings' involved the use of pistols and shotguns as the weapon of choice. The vast majority of school shootings involve handguns, shotguns, and 22LRs.

But of course none of that matters when all you have is empty headed rhetoric tossed out to appeal to gun banners. Because your next comment will be "OK, so ban them too"...which is the anti-gun intent all along. First get people a taste for banning by targeting the 'scary' guns. Then you can say...well...golly...its still happening...hate to do it but I guess we have to ban them all...

pamak said:

#1 I was clear that I have an issue with your selective view regarding which side makes arbitrary classifications of weapons. I gave you a link (The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter's Gun : NPR) and I will ask: Is this an example of an arbitrary classification of a weapon as a pistol? If you accept that it is, then you should not be surprised if the other side also uses some arbitrary classifications in a way that supports its cause.

#2 Currently they are legal but but you have also a burden to support the argument that the law will not accomplish anything. It seems that for the gun-control side the argument is that we need to address the increase of mass shootings we observe in the last decade (Active shooter incident have become more common in U.S. in recent years | Pew Research Center) by making it more difficult for people to get weapons that can reach a high effective rate of fire



Anyway the conversation should start with the type of law we are debating: For example, Is it a law that includes banning higher capacity magazines or not? And what about new technologies for smart firearms like fingerprint recognition?

And something else: what about the law that limits gun violence research that may be used to support gun control? Why are the pro2A guys afraid of such federal research?

Click to expand...

The Pistol Caliber Rifle is not an arbitrary description of a weapon, any more so than a pistol Caliber Rifle, or a short barrel rifle. These are classifications of weapons based on specific definitions created by a government gun control agency. The ony thing that is 'arbitrary' is anti-gun maroons making the claim "we have to ban assault rifles!" when they cant define what they are even talking about. That is made QUITE clear any time someone calls an Armalite Rifle and 'assault rifle' or a 'weapon of war'.

pamak said:

#1 I was clear that I have an issue with your selective view regarding which side makes arbitrary classifications of weapons. I gave you a link (The Pistol That Looks Like A Rifle: The Dayton Shooter's Gun : NPR) and I will ask: Is this an example of an arbitrary classification of a weapon as a pistol? If you accept that it is, then you should not be surprised if the other side also uses some arbitrary classifications in a way that supports its cause.

Click to expand...

The text of the article is correct. A pistol can be either a semi-automatic or fully automatic, does not have a stock and is not intended to be fired using the shoulder as support. However, if you notice the photograph of your article, it is NOT a pistol because that rifle contains a stock and is intended to use the shoulder for support.

pamak said:

#2 Currently they are legal but but you have also a burden to support the argument that the law will not accomplish anything. It seems that for the gun-control side the argument is that we need to address the increase of mass shootings we observe in the last decade (Active shooter incident have become more common in U.S. in recent years | Pew Research Center) by making it more difficult for people to get weapons that can reach a high effective rate of fire

Click to expand...

That would be an infringement, and therefore unconstitutional. That AR15, by the way, was developed specifically for civilians a full decade before it was modified and sold to the military as the M16A1.

pamak said:

Anyway the conversation should start with the type of law we are debating: For example, Is it a law that includes banning higher capacity magazines or not? And what about new technologies for smart firearms like fingerprint recognition?

And something else: what about the law that limits gun violence research that may be used to support gun control? Why are the pro2A guys afraid of such federal research?

Click to expand...

You still have the issue of existing firearms. You cannot enact retroactive laws, which means that you cannot prohibit the millions of existing high capacity magazines. You could only limit the manufacture of future magazines. Those who think preventing people from buying 30-round magazines and buying only 10-round magazines instead is going to "save lives" are delusional. The ONLY reason anyone wants to limit the capacity of magazines is to inconvenience law-abiding gun owners as much as possible.

Those so-called "smart" firearms aren't very smart, or the police would be using them. So don't count on many people buying them. And no, you cannot enact a law requiring all future gun sales be "smart" firearms, that would also be an infringement since it would effectively ban all other firearms.

It really isn't the federal government's place to research gun violence. Have you ever bothered to actually read the US Constitution? The power and authority of the federal government is contained within that document, and they are not allowed to utilize any other power not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. So when you can show where the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to research gun violence you will have a valid argument, but not until then. Contrary to what you may believe, the federal government is not an all-powerful dictatorship able to do whatever they please. They must abide by the US Constitution. A US Constitution that includes the Second Amendment as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Glitch said:

It really isn't the federal government's place to research gun violence. Have you ever bothered to actually read the US Constitution? The power and authority of the federal government is contained within that document, and they [sic] are not allowed to utilize any other power not specifically granted to them [sic] by the US Constitution. So when you can show where the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to research gun violence you will have a valid argument, but not until then. Contrary to what you may believe, the federal government is not an all-powerful dictatorship able to do whatever they please [sic]. They must abide by the US Constitution. A US Constitution that includes the Second Amendment as [sic] the Supreme Law of the Land.

Click to expand...

The section quoted goes to the heart of the matter quite nicely. It presents one side of a binary argument. At question is whether the Constitution of the United States of America should serve the people or whether the reverse is the case. It should be noted that the vast body of case law is not considered relevant.

Regards.

Torus34 said:

The section quoted goes to the heart of the matter quite nicely. It presents one side of a binary argument. At question is whether the Constitution of the United States of America should serve the people or whether the reverse is the case.

Regards.

Click to expand...

The US Constitution serves the people by limiting the powers of the federal government to only those powers that the document grants, and no others.

Ok, let me put it another way.....

ChezC3 said:

Ok, let me put it another way.....



View attachment 67262077

Click to expand...

LOL! Nice meme. I particularly like all the fully automatic firearms in the background. That is some serious hardware! Hehehe

No American with any intelligence would ever register their firearm. That is the height of stupidity. It has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that registration is always the precursor to confiscation. Congress cannot even mandate background checks, because the Supreme Court held that to be a violation of the Tenth Amendment. So how do you expect Congress to enact any kind of national firearm registry? Constitutionally speaking, it can't happen.

pamak said:

Read again the law. The section bans not a particular type of Uzi.

Text - H.R.3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as--
``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;
``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
``(iv) Colt AR-15;
``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
``(vii) Steyr AUG;
``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to)
the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

This reads like a ban of any model regardless if it was a Chinese copy or a Finnish copy and regardless of even the caliber. So, if one was trying to create an AK-47 of a different caliber, this weapons would have been banned also as a result of this section of the law. Sounds very broad. And yes, anything that is commercial will be part of a catalogue. It is obvious though that the choice of weapons was not a random one.

Click to expand...

(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;

RedSunRising said:

Yeah, it's a wonder to me that the greatest country on the planet contains so few great people.

Click to expand...

Why result in gutter tactics by trying to put words in peoples mouths. We have many great people who care more about the lives of their families and what they are involved in. You might know for example that LESS than 2/3 of people ELIGIBLE to vote do so for president.

ludin said:

yep that assault weapons are already banned.
see that was easy. what they want is already done.

Click to expand...

Which ones? "Assault weapons" are a whole category of weapons, some of which are legal now.