Do You Support This Bill?
Yes
26.7% (16)
26.7% (16)
No
70% (42)
70% (42)
I am Indecisive
3.3% (2)
3.3% (2)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Senator Feinstein Introduces Assault Weapons Ban

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Well folks we finally have a bill on the Senate floor. Instead of simply throwing the old ban out there like last time now we have a new even sillier ban that will soon be put up to vote. As it currently stands one can find the proposed measures here.

Extra Source One

Extra Source Two

What are your thoughts on the proposed bill? To strict or not strict enough? Do you think it will have an impact on crime or is it another meaningless law? As a good OP I will give my opinion first.

To me the bill is mostly useless legislation as far as actually keeping people safe goes. The things it goes after are used in violent crimes then bats and fists and it has already shown to do little to actually effect crime. In my opinion this bill is simply a feel good measure for those who want a "easy solution" for solving the problems of crime and violence in American society while ignoring the real things that are killing thousands every year like the Drug War, Thug Culture, and Poverty.

What is even more interesting to me in this bill itself is the sources cited in it's own overview. The first source cited which claims "a gun crime decrease of 6.7%, holding all other factors equal" was written in 1997; about three years after the law passed. This would sound like a good thing except that if one actually reads the study it is hardly conclusive. I read through it some and did not find anything stating anything beyond the results were inconclusive or showed weak trends of less crime. Though I personally wouldn't put much emphasis on such an early study regardless of what side I was on.

The next claim citing this study claims a reduction of Assault Weapons used in crime of 67%. The study itself however only claimed 33% or more. This is a drop from the pre-ban percentage of approx. 7%. So that went to about 4%. This however means very little in my opinion as this has little bearing on the overall gun crime rate which dropped at a similar rate to what it was before the ban.

Those were just the first two studies cited.

Here are some of the more outlandish and quite silly parts of the bill.

1. All Semi-Automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Rocket Launcher.

Umm... I don't think any rifle, or gun for that matter, has also had a Rocket launcher as an attachment. The closest I can think of his a handful of rocket launchers that a small pistol round used for range sighting.

2. All semi-automatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip.

How many pistols can anyone name that has a detachable magazine that is outside the trigger besides revolvers and the German Lugar? The only other one I can think of is dedicated target pistol: http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/olympic-target-pistol.jpg

The fact she highly manipulates the wordings of ALL the studies she cites (forgetting to mention that even though firearm ownership has been increasing faster than the birth rate since the first ban expired, crime rate has continued to go down for the last eight years) or any other studies that contradict the findings she "needs."

Oh man, the poor SPAS-12 can never catch a break can it?

Despite not having been in production for at least a decade, it's still such a threat to our streets that it gets included by name in just about every bill that appears.

Also, banning Kel-Tec RFB... Implying one even exists in the physical realm and it's not all just la li lu le lo sorcery.

I vehemently oppose it. If someone wants to remove the second amendment, they're free to try. No one is. They're just trying to ban it out of existence. I can't legally, morally, or ideologically support just ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution.

This poll needs a "Fuck no and the senator needs to resign" option.
This bill will never pass and it's gonna hurt the political careers of anyone stupid enough to sign it.

I don't understand why anyone would possibly object to such reasonable weapons control other than being a felon.

Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets? If you can't kill a deer with so many bullets, it deserves to get away. You people with your thirty clip magazines are just nuts.

pointless introducing a law like that when they allow people to keep the millions of weapons that are now illegal

Mr.BadExample:
I don't understand why anyone would possibly object to such reasonable weapons control other than being a felon.

Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets? If you can't kill a deer with so many bullets, it deserves to get away. You people with your thirty clip magazines are just nuts.

It is not the ten bullets on the deer we are worried about, it is more having some left for the wolf or bear that is charging you.

Or not ever having to worry about needing "1 more shot" if you need to defend your life from an attacker.

It also just doesn't ban ten round clips, but many other things, like telescoping butts (oh no, a person shooting a gun can actually make the gun comfortably fit their arm length!) pistol and forward grips (make the gun more comfortable to hold, not deadlier in any meaningful way) limits semi-automatic shotguns to five rounds (it is not very clear if the tube can hold five, plus a sixth in the chamber, or four in the tube and one in the chamber), handguns that have the magazine anywhere besides in the handgrip (nothing to indicate revolvers are exempt) and other features on the gun that make it look military issue, and thus "scary." More people in the Us are killed with knives than all the "military style" guns you could ever name.

Not G. Ivingname:

Mr.BadExample:
I don't understand why anyone would possibly object to such reasonable weapons control other than being a felon.

Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets? If you can't kill a deer with so many bullets, it deserves to get away. You people with your thirty clip magazines are just nuts.

It is not the ten bullets on the deer we are worried about, it is more having some left for the wolf or bear that is charging you.

Or not ever having to worry about needing "1 more shot" if you need to defend your life from an attacker.

It also just doesn't ban ten round clips, but many other things, like telescoping butts (oh no, a person shooting a gun can actually make the gun comfortably fit their arm length!) pistol and forward grips (make the gun more comfortable to hold, not deadlier in any meaningful way) limits semi-automatic shotguns to five rounds (it is not very clear if the tube can hold five, plus a sixth in the chamber, or four in the tube and one in the chamber), handguns that have the magazine anywhere besides in the handgrip (nothing to indicate revolvers are exempt) and other features on the gun that make it look military issue, and thus "scary." More people in the Us are killed with knives than all the "military style" guns you could ever name.

I think the reason they're OK with revolvers is because when was the last time you saw one that could hold 10 or more bullets? 5 or 6 is normal, though I did find a 12 shot revolver


Of course it's a .22 so it's really practical for killing things bigger than a squirrel.

Xan Krieger:

Not G. Ivingname:

Mr.BadExample:
I don't understand why anyone would possibly object to such reasonable weapons control other than being a felon.

Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets? If you can't kill a deer with so many bullets, it deserves to get away. You people with your thirty clip magazines are just nuts.

It is not the ten bullets on the deer we are worried about, it is more having some left for the wolf or bear that is charging you.

Or not ever having to worry about needing "1 more shot" if you need to defend your life from an attacker.

It also just doesn't ban ten round clips, but many other things, like telescoping butts (oh no, a person shooting a gun can actually make the gun comfortably fit their arm length!) pistol and forward grips (make the gun more comfortable to hold, not deadlier in any meaningful way) limits semi-automatic shotguns to five rounds (it is not very clear if the tube can hold five, plus a sixth in the chamber, or four in the tube and one in the chamber), handguns that have the magazine anywhere besides in the handgrip (nothing to indicate revolvers are exempt) and other features on the gun that make it look military issue, and thus "scary." More people in the Us are killed with knives than all the "military style" guns you could ever name.

I think the reason they're OK with revolvers is because when was the last time you saw one that could hold 10 or more bullets? 5 or 6 is normal, though I did find a 12 shot revolver


Of course it's a .22 so it's really practical for killing things bigger than a squirrel.

All it says is "semi-automatic handgun that can accept bullets besides in the trigger guard."

It is just kind of vague if double action revolvers count or not, since the bullets are not contained within the pistol grip, nor do any of the links provide the named exceptions to the laws. Single action revolvers will totally make the cut. It is jut a sign of a badly written law when nobody is quite sure what it covers or not.

Fooddude:
I vehemently oppose it. If someone wants to remove the second amendment, they're free to try. No one is. They're just trying to ban it out of existence. I can't legally, morally, or ideologically support just ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution.

I can't understand your claim that banning one class of firearm violates the second amendment. You aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons (except under very stringent regulations). Does this in your view also violate the second amendment?

I don't really oppose an "assault weapons" ban but i think the bill should have more of an emphasis on stopping mentally deranged people from obtaining dangerous firearms on a whim. If you had a lot more federal regulation, like introducing gun licensing categories like you get in Australia, annual mental health and background checks for gunowners for instance, or a legal requirement to store guns in secure safes etc, then those sort of things may address the problem more directly.

Still, it will be interesting to see if the bill's passed to compare the frequency and deadliness of gun massacres before and after the bill was introduced.

Sounds like a good idea. The gun lobby is still completely without arguments as to why there's supposedly a right to shoot up classrooms, nor for any other of their outlandish claims, so anything that can be done to reduce gun violence, go right ahead.

Not G. Ivingname:
Here are some of the more outlandish and quite silly parts of the bill.

1. All Semi-Automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Rocket Launcher.

Umm... I don't think any rifle, or gun for that matter, has also had a Rocket launcher as an attachment. The closest I can think of his a handful of rocket launchers that a small pistol round used for range sighting.

They mean an attachment for firing rifle grenades, don't they? (IIRC, rocket launchers tend to use standard rifle ammunition for spotting rifles. EDIT: I was thinking of recoiless rifles and tank guns)

Not G. Ivingname:
2. All semi-automatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip.

How many pistols can anyone name that has a detachable magazine that is outside the trigger besides revolvers and the German Lugar? The only other one I can think of is dedicated target pistol: http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/olympic-target-pistol.jpg

Off the top of my head, the Skorpion. There is one other I'm thinking of, but the name eludes me...it's more like a small SMG with no stock than a pistol though. Actually, certain small SMGs might fall under the US definition of "pistol". MP5K with no fore grip or stock, for example.

...

But...what's actually wrong with those rules? Sure, they don't apply to many firearms, but surely that makes them less of a big deal?

I think it's a good idea... and there is no way in hell it will pass. It will take someone using an assault rifle killing two elementary schools AND a mall (with at least 150 deaths) before the voting will reach 50/50. The NRA's lobby is too powerful (read: rich), and selling these hyper masculine machines of destruction to people who think its cool is how they make their money.

Let's face it, I would guess 90% of people who own a weapon on the list do not own it for self-defense or hunting or sport shooting. They own it because it's a badass display item that you can use to scare people off your property.

Let's go down the popular arguments from my FaceBook page against the bill:

1) IT VIOLATES MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:

A: No one is saying you can't own guns. You can't legally own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, a minigun, or a fully automatic weapon. What's the difference?

2) THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE A DICTATORSHIP WITHOUT GUNS TO DEFEND OURSELVES:

A: You really think your AR-15 will save you if Obama decided tomorrow that he wanted to be the black Hitler? A drone missile does a LOT more damage than 50 AR-15s, so the opportunity to stop the government if it wanted to take over passed a LONG time ago.

3) IT WOULD ONLY KEEP THESE WEAPONS OUT OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS HANDS

A: I suppose the black market is on every street corner, next to the Safeway? People do what is easy. They shoot with these weapons because they are currently easy to obtain. Make them harder, and they can either A) Painstakingly run down one of these weapons or B) Use a less efficient weapon and drastically decrease the death toll.

4) CRIMINALS WILL JUST USE BOMBS OR KNIFES

A: A bomb recipe may be readily available on the internet, but your average deranged killer wouldn't be able to make one. Occasionally one might make his bomb. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a bomb than with a gun (Timing on the explosive, placing it where it can't be seen or found but can still kill a large quantity of people etc). Columbine is a wonderful example. Klebold and Harris placed 3 bombs in the school, as well as shooting 13 people. The bombs were found to be inert because they screwed up the bomb making process. As far as knives go, the same week as Newtown, a man stabbed 22 people in China... killed zero. Nuff said.

Feel free to add more arguments.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Let's go down the popular arguments from my FaceBook page against the bill:

1) IT VIOLATES MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:

A: No one is saying you can't own guns. You can't legally own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, a minigun, or a fully automatic weapon. What's the difference?

2) THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE A DICTATORSHIP WITHOUT GUNS TO DEFEND OURSELVES:

A: You really think your AR-15 will save you if Obama decided tomorrow that he wanted to be the black Hitler? A drone missile does a LOT more damage than 50 AR-15s, so the opportunity to stop the government if it wanted to take over passed a LONG time ago.


Also, what is Viet Cong for 500?

Blablahb:
Sounds like a good idea. The gun lobby is still completely without arguments as to why there's supposedly a right to shoot up classrooms, nor for any other of their outlandish claims, so anything that can be done to reduce gun violence, go right ahead.

1. Is the definition of "assault weapons" less stupid than in previous conversations about assault weapons? At the bare minimum does this image at least not apply this time?

image

2. Who has ever said that there is a right to shoot up classrooms? That strawman makes scarecrows ashamed.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

4) CRIMINALS WILL JUST USE BOMBS OR KNIFES

A: A bomb recipe may be readily available on the internet, but your average deranged killer wouldn't be able to make one. Occasionally one might make his bomb. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a bomb than with a gun (Timing on the explosive, placing it where it can't be seen or found but can still kill a large quantity of people etc). Columbine is a wonderful example. Klebold and Harris placed 3 bombs in the school, as well as shooting 13 people. The bombs were found to be inert because they screwed up the bomb making process. As far as knives go, the same week as Newtown, a man stabbed 22 people in China... killed zero. Nuff said.

Two things:

1. Spree shootings are like plane crashes -- comparatively rare events that draw disproportionate attention to the damage they cause, because they do a lot of it all at once. More die in car accidents than plane crashes, whether we talk per hour, per mile, or per trip, likewise more people are killed in individual murders than in spree killings, it's just not as flashy. If we're talking about single killings, then knives or bludgeons are every bit as good as guns (in fact, statistics suggest that most firearms killings are done with pistols [readily available, more concealable, and just as capable of murder as a "scary" AR-15], and that knives and bludgeons are both more common than the next class of firearm).

2. If we're talking about wanting to kill big groups of people, then bombs are your friend, assuming you aren't too stupid to get one going. A fertilizer/diesel fuel bomb (the kind used in the OKC bombing) isn't all that hard to make, but it lacks the portability of what they tried to use in Columbine because you need quite a bit of both. If I were the Newtown shooter and didn't have access to a reasonable gun, it's what I would have used -- rented a U-Haul, loaded it up, and pulled it up to the window of the classroom. Not terribly hard to detonate either (which is where most bombers who fail fail at), and it would have caused a much larger death toll.

Schadrach:
2. Who has ever said that there is a right to shoot up classrooms?

The NRA and the rest of the gun lobby.

At least, they resist any and all effective measures at preventing that from happening. How else can it possibly be interpreted?

One thing that's not possible however is to resist gun control, doublethink the inevitable consequences of that and pretend they're not okay with school shootings. It's either being opposed to shootings or being opposed to gun control.

I vehemently disagree with the proposal cause most of it is asinine as far as it having any affect whatsoever other than bumping up rifle prices by 25%. Why cant they just open nics for private sales?

Fooddude:
I vehemently oppose it. If someone wants to remove the second amendment, they're free to try. No one is. They're just trying to ban it out of existence. I can't legally, morally, or ideologically support just ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution.

Nobody is removing it, they are just interpreting it in a way you do not like:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That word tells you nothing about what you are allowed to have. You could argue that these:

image

Are the only allowed firearms and that is completely valid. You have an interpretation and theirs is different, they are not ignoring anything. If anything it is the pro-gun lobby that are ignoring the constitution, they have changed the meaning of the text from what it originally meant (having an organised militia ready to fight an oppressive regime) to what they liked more (everyone has guns).

This is the thing, you are not protected when it comes to owning guns; are you part of a well regulated militia, complete with chain of command, training, organisational structure and contingency plans? I doubt 90% of gun owners fall into that category. The text says people can have guns to maintain a militia, if they aren't maintaining a militia then they shouldn't have them.

Karma168:

Fooddude:
I vehemently oppose it. If someone wants to remove the second amendment, they're free to try. No one is. They're just trying to ban it out of existence. I can't legally, morally, or ideologically support just ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution.

Nobody is removing it, they are just interpreting it in a way you do not like:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That word tells you nothing about what you are allowed to have. You could argue that these:

snip

Are the only allowed firearms and that is completely valid. You have an interpretation and theirs is different, they are not ignoring anything. If anything it is the pro-gun lobby that are ignoring the constitution, they have changed the meaning of the text from what it originally meant (having an organised militia ready to fight an oppressive regime) to what they liked more (everyone has guns).

This is the thing, you are not protected when it comes to owning guns; are you part of a well regulated militia, complete with chain of command, training, organisational structure and contingency plans? I doubt 90% of gun owners fall into that category. The text says people can have guns to maintain a militia, if they aren't maintaining a militia then they shouldn't have them.

Well, for one, they are ignoring the Supreme Court. From the District of Columbia V Heller,

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.[145][146]
The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.[145][146]
The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.[145][146]
The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.[145][146]
The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.[145][146]
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.[145][146]
None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.[145][146]

That also masterfully destroys your second point, that the Militia is a limiting term in the amendment, not simply a justification.

Sadly, I don't think this goes far enough. Take an inch where you can get it though I guess.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Let's go down the popular arguments from my FaceBook page against the bill:

1) IT VIOLATES MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:

A: No one is saying you can't own guns. You can't legally own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, a minigun, or a fully automatic weapon. What's the difference?

Don't know laws, talking like you do, first mistake. Yes you can own a .50 cal, you can own a minigun, you can own a fully automatic, if it's before being made 1986.

2) THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE A DICTATORSHIP WITHOUT GUNS TO DEFEND OURSELVES:

A: You really think your AR-15 will save you if Obama decided tomorrow that he wanted to be the black Hitler? A drone missile does a LOT more damage than 50 AR-15s, so the opportunity to stop the government if it wanted to take over passed a LONG time ago.

3) IT WOULD ONLY KEEP THESE WEAPONS OUT OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS HANDS

A: I suppose the black market is on every street corner, next to the Safeway? People do what is easy. They shoot with these weapons because they are currently easy to obtain. Make them harder, and they can either A) Painstakingly run down one of these weapons or B) Use a less efficient weapon and drastically decrease the death toll.

Criminals use handguns period, rarely using rifles, let alone the "ASSAULT WEAPONS", this bill targets law abiding citizens, really only targeting 1% of homicide. The DOJ and CDC called it out that it was useless including the 10 magazine limit.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
This for further proof of your AWB being a dud.

4) CRIMINALS WILL JUST USE BOMBS OR KNIFES

A: A bomb recipe may be readily available on the internet, but your average deranged killer wouldn't be able to make one. Occasionally one might make his bomb. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a bomb than with a gun (Timing on the explosive, placing it where it can't be seen or found but can still kill a large quantity of people etc). Columbine is a wonderful example. Klebold and Harris placed 3 bombs in the school, as well as shooting 13 people. The bombs were found to be inert because they screwed up the bomb making process. As far as knives go, the same week as Newtown, a man stabbed 22 people in China... killed zero. Nuff said.

Feel free to add more arguments.

Mr.BadExample:
I don't understand why anyone would possibly object to such reasonable weapons control other than being a felon.

Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets? If you can't kill a deer with so many bullets, it deserves to get away. You people with your thirty clip magazines are just nuts.

You're thinking of what hunters and sport shooters use in your head, and it doesn't fit reality at all. A commmon mistake with gun control advocate groups as they are thinking some Hollywood, folklore shit about hunters and recreational shooters. Yes hunters, and sport shooters use those guns, they use the standard magazine unless you live in a state that put a cap on them. Those are few by the way. In fact this should tell you all about the Assault weapon: http://www.assaultweapon.info/.

The bill is dead anyway, they are more than likely trying the door-to-the-face approach, they don't have the votes and the appeal to emotions was fucking funny plus IRON SLIDERS!!! Feinstien is a fucking idiot and so is Biden who stated that the bill was useless anyway, and the only reason why they are trying to pull this is just because, yes they know it won't do a damn thing, cause remember CT has a AWB in place currently.

Some will say, we have a 10 limit magazine and this isn't a big deal for us, but just because your country or state in US case, decided to do that doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with you guys, so no we will fight that too, and I highly doubt that will make it too from the way things are going.

Magenera:
The bill is dead anyway, they are more than likely trying the door-to-the-face approach, they don't have the votes and the appeal to emotions was fucking funny plus IRON SLIDERS!!! Feinstien is a fucking idiot and so is Biden who stated that the bill was useless anyway, and the only reason why they are trying to pull this is just because, yes they know it won't do a damn thing, cause remember CT has a AWB in place currently.

So you're flaming and bashing anyone who argues in favour of measures to stop or contain spree shootings, but you're not actually saying anything. Nothing sensible anyway. It's hardly being constructive.

It's just empthy phrases. "This won't work, that won't work!" and no arguments of any kind of why that would happen.

Fooddude:
Well, for one, they are ignoring the Supreme Court. From the District of Columbia V Heller

No. That case, which was a clear mistaken interpretation by the supreme court, only was about 'federal enclaves' and only extended to legitimate use of firearms.

If you make a law making it explicitly forbidden to use weapons against someone who's not a mortal threat to you (like the popular thing among gun owners of murdering a burglar or thief over wanting to steal $ 10-40 worth of stuff) then you've redefined legitimate use in a way that you don't need firearms pretty much anywhere outside of an actual militia, and from there you could springboard to banning all firearms possession outside of government-controlled militias, which are obligated to store their weapons in armories. And all that while staying inside the archaic second amendment.

Law interpretations can vary hugely. As a result, you can't claim 'constitution says this, therefore I'm always right'.

Magenera:
IRON SLIDERS!!!

Okay, what did I miss here? Did Feinstein call something Iron Sliders or something?

Blablahb:
No. That case, which was a clear mistaken interpretation by the supreme court, only was about 'federal enclaves' and only extended to legitimate use of firearms.

If you make a law making it explicitly forbidden to use weapons against someone who's not a mortal threat to you (like the popular thing among gun owners of murdering a burglar or thief over wanting to steal $ 10-40 worth of stuff) then you've redefined legitimate use in a way that you don't need firearms pretty much anywhere outside of an actual militia, and from there you could springboard to banning all firearms possession outside of government-controlled militias, which are obligated to store their weapons in armories. And all that while staying inside the archaic second amendment.

Law interpretations can vary hugely. As a result, you can't claim 'constitution says this, therefore I'm always right'.

Not quite. According to the summary of the case published by Cornell University Law School states that:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

This basically means that if the use is lawful it is protected, not much of a surprise. If the law states that someone forcibly entering ones home constitutes a threat to life/health of the occupant then in that case firing upon the intruder would constitute lawful use. If a use is simply not mentioned in law; such as shooting cans in the woods (I don't know if anyone has this specific instance on the books, but for sake of the example lets assume it is not) then it is by default legal. It does not require specific authorization by law. Though this leaves the person liable for civil suits and damages, but I digress.

Now, a common counterpoint to this is "oh so everyone gets assault rifles?"; not quite. Also in the summary it states:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Now if the law protects weapons in "common use" then weapons that fall under the legal definition of "Assault Weapon" are certainly covered as they are incredibly common. Millions of them in fact.

Fooddude:

Leadfinger:

Fooddude:
I vehemently oppose it. If someone wants to remove the second amendment, they're free to try. No one is. They're just trying to ban it out of existence. I can't legally, morally, or ideologically support just ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution.

I can't understand your claim that banning one class of firearm violates the second amendment. You aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons (except under very stringent regulations). Does this in your view also violate the second amendment?

Yes, it does. Just because it has already been infringed upon doesn't mean I should stop fighting further violations.

So your view is that the second amendment gives anyone the right to own a machine gun without restriction. That's kind of silly, isn't it?

Leadfinger:

Fooddude:

Leadfinger:
I can't understand your claim that banning one class of firearm violates the second amendment. You aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons (except under very stringent regulations). Does this in your view also violate the second amendment?

Yes, it does. Just because it has already been infringed upon doesn't mean I should stop fighting further violations.

So your view is that the second amendment gives anyone the right to own a machine gun without restriction. That's kind of silly, isn't it?

Technically, yes. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and only 13 people have been murdered by automatic weapons since 1934, one of whom was a police officer who got shot by another police officer. That being said, I am aware that rights have limits. I'm okay with libel being illegal, even though it would be considered free speech in the most literal of interpretations. I just want the limits to make sense. Banning a class of weapons which is responsible for 2-3% (This is counting all rifles, not just semiautomatics,) of firearms-related deaths doesn't make sense.

Not G. Ivingname:
1. All Semi-Automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Rocket Launcher.

Umm... I don't think any rifle, or gun for that matter, has also had a Rocket launcher as an attachment. The closest I can think of his a handful of rocket launchers that a small pistol round used for range sighting.

Probably a reference to rifle mounted grenades-

image

2. All semi-automatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip.

How many pistols can anyone name that has a detachable magazine that is outside the trigger besides revolvers and the German Lugar? The only other one I can think of is dedicated target pistol: http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/olympic-target-pistol.jpg

Keep in mind that if it does not have a stock and has a short enough barrel then it is a pistol (in the mind of the ATF at least)-

image

The fact she highly manipulates the wordings of ALL the studies she cites (forgetting to mention that even though firearm ownership has been increasing faster than the birth rate since the first ban expired, crime rate has continued to go down for the last eight years) or any other studies that contradict the findings she "needs."

Remember of Adams said- "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Mr.BadExample:
Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets? If you can't kill a deer with so many bullets, it deserves to get away. You people with your thirty clip magazines are just nuts.

First of all, "clip magazines"? Moving on.

As a hunter I do need 30 round magazines (20 rounds in my case). Why? Because I need to be able to shoot 10 pigs or more before they run away. If I do not then I will be chasing the damn things for hours or days.

Also, what makes you think that a magazine has to be loaded to full capacity for it to work? You do not have to load 30 rounds into a magazine for it to function.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Let's face it, I would guess 90% of people who own a weapon on the list do not own it for self-defense or hunting or sport shooting. They own it because it's a badass display item that you can use to scare people off your property.

Can you prove that?

Anyway, let us go down the list.

My m1 Garands- I keep them as collector's items (a friend of mine and my grandfather carried them during WW2 and Korea respectively). I also use them for milsurp competitions.

My AR-15- used for 3-gun matches.

My AR-10- used for various matches and for hunting.

My HK91- mainly a safe queen but my friend used it for foreign milsurp competitions when he was alive.

My Remington 1100- 3-gun matches.

Skorpion- safe queen.

Etc.

My display firearms are old firearms. Why? I like wood over plastic. I will stick a k31 on my wall long before I put an AR on my wall. My ARs are functional, my Riverside Arms shotgun is sentimental.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
No one is saying you can't own guns. You can't legally own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, a minigun, or a fully automatic weapon. What's the difference?

You can say anything you want, except for everything we do not like.

See it now?

You really think your AR-15 will save you if Obama decided tomorrow that he wanted to be the black Hitler? A drone missile does a LOT more damage than 50 AR-15s, so the opportunity to stop the government if it wanted to take over passed a LONG time ago.

One bullet fired accurately does far more damage than a drone missile fired at random.

I suppose the black market is on every street corner, next to the Safeway?

Yeah pretty much. I have been to NYC (never again though). You want a gun, look for a seedy looking ally and wait.

A bomb recipe may be readily available on the internet, but your average deranged killer wouldn't be able to make one.

Why? Because you say so? I built a bomb when I was a teenager. People all over the world build bombs. Hell, I saw a CNN video where the reporter was talking to a Syrian bomb maker. He could not go down to the local home depot to get the supplies he needed. We can. We also have the combined knowledge of the planet at our fingertips. Why can't we do it?

It's still a lot harder to kill people with a bomb than with a gun (Timing on the explosive, placing it where it can't be seen or found but can still kill a large quantity of people etc).

Actually not that hard, especially if you do not plan on surviving (which seems to be most of these guys).

Columbine is a wonderful example. Klebold and Harris placed 3 bombs in the school, as well as shooting 13 people. The bombs were found to be inert because they screwed up the bomb making process.

So your solution is to have them spend more time on their bombs rather than their guns.

As far as knives go, the same week as Newtown, a man stabbed 22 people in China... killed zero.

You ignored fire. Some of the deadliest mass killings in history were with fire. You talk about 20, they talk about hundreds of people.

Mr.BadExample:

Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets?

Hunting is not an "excuse" for the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment is there so I can defend myself from tyranny, i.e. government troops used as a tool of tyranny.

Having 10 round magazines as a "limit" does not make much difference when you are shooting at 1st graders huddled into a corner crying.

It makes worlds of difference when you are fighting a solider with 3-6 30 round magazines for their M4.

I will not give up my ability to fight back because of stupidity, the stupidity in thinking that it makes a difference what type of gun you bring to massacre unarmed victims.

When they take away everything except for double barrel shotguns, tube fed magazine weapons and revolvers, yes- then maybe it will make a difference. But you might as well be disarmed at that point, you definitely would not be much threat to government sponsored terrorism.

That's what they really want out of these bills. It's not about public safety. If they gave a shit about dead children they would ban swimming pools. They would make social services worth a fuck so that I would never have had the displeasure of meeting a woman who shook her 6 month old baby to death.

They're banning guns because they want control, they want power. That's all.

Don't be stupid.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

A drone missile does a LOT more damage than 50 AR-15s, so the opportunity to stop the government if it wanted to take over passed a LONG time ago.

I guess the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban missed your facebook post. You also forget that America is a nation of warriors. There are many veterans among us, discarded tools of America's blood lust. I am one. You saw how troublesome 100,000 poorly trained insurgents were under the entire thumb of the America's might... Their insurrection would be nothing in comparison to ours should it come to pass.

Blablahb:

Magenera:
The bill is dead anyway, they are more than likely trying the door-to-the-face approach, they don't have the votes and the appeal to emotions was fucking funny plus IRON SLIDERS!!! Feinstien is a fucking idiot and so is Biden who stated that the bill was useless anyway, and the only reason why they are trying to pull this is just because, yes they know it won't do a damn thing, cause remember CT has a AWB in place currently.

So you're flaming and bashing anyone who argues in favour of measures to stop or contain spree shootings, but you're not actually saying anything. Nothing sensible anyway. It's hardly being constructive.

It's just empthy phrases. "This won't work, that won't work!" and no arguments of any kind of why that would happen.

Hey lets ban this even though it does nothing, and we are on record of saying it does nothing, but we want to ban it anyway because, lol we said so. They know it does nothing, they know that it's a feel good law, that only hurts firearm owners. So yes I will call them a fucking flaming idiot when you put out a bill, that you know does nothing more than to hurt law abiding citizens. I'm more surprise that people for gun control defend these shits, but I guess people will take anything when your damn cause is dying. As one guy said, "if the AWB doesn't pass, gun control is dead, because if 20 dead 6 year olds can't change America opinion then nothing will."

farson135:

Not G. Ivingname:
1. All Semi-Automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Rocket Launcher.

Umm... I don't think any rifle, or gun for that matter, has also had a Rocket launcher as an attachment. The closest I can think of his a handful of rocket launchers that a small pistol round used for range sighting.

Probably a reference to rifle mounted grenades-

image

Well, that would fall under "grenade launcher" wouldn't it? Although, the difference between rockets and grenades are kind of a blurry line.

2. All semi-automatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip.

How many pistols can anyone name that has a detachable magazine that is outside the trigger besides revolvers and the German Lugar? The only other one I can think of is dedicated target pistol: http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/olympic-target-pistol.jpg

Keep in mind that if it does not have a stock and has a short enough barrel then it is a pistol (in the mind of the ATF at least)-

image[/quote]

Forgot about those.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Let's go down the popular arguments from my FaceBook page against the bill:

1) IT VIOLATES MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:

A: No one is saying you can't own guns. You can't legally own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, a minigun, or a fully automatic weapon. What's the difference?

Technically, you legally can, as of now. Their is ban of selling new miniguns or other fully automatic weapons, but no laws preventing transfer of pre-1986 that were legally bought (which includes 8 mini-guns) if you have the ATF tax stamp (none of which have been used in a crime since the 30's). Also, no national laws banning .50 BMG rounds, only a handful of states do (and the number of crimes committed with privately purchased .50 BMG weapons are... zero, ever).

This bill would also ban a huge amount of weapons, just because they are "scary looking," plus many useful features such as telescoping stocks and fore/handgrips (they make guns more comfortable to hold).

2) THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE A DICTATORSHIP WITHOUT GUNS TO DEFEND OURSELVES:

A: You really think your AR-15 will save you if Obama decided tomorrow that he wanted to be the black Hitler? A drone missile does a LOT more damage than 50 AR-15s, so the opportunity to stop the government if it wanted to take over passed a LONG time ago.

An armed resistance of 80 million gun owners (the lowest estimate, not counting the people's families) would put a long and hard resistance that would take years, if not decades to fully crush, making an increasingly unpopular, and expensive war. Even if you do manage to capture/kill all the rebels, if nothing else that is a long time those people are not paying the government tax money.

3) IT WOULD ONLY KEEP THESE WEAPONS OUT OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS HANDS

A: I suppose the black market is on every street corner, next to the Safeway? People do what is easy. They shoot with these weapons because they are currently easy to obtain. Make them harder, and they can either A) Painstakingly run down one of these weapons or B) Use a less efficient weapon and drastically decrease the death toll.

Does not strip the guns current in the hands of gangs or on the black market, which will take a long time to track, hunt down. Also, a lot of guns actually are coming from Mexico, were many defectors of the military (they have a LOT of them down there).

4) CRIMINALS WILL JUST USE BOMBS OR KNIFES

A: A bomb recipe may be readily available on the internet, but your average deranged killer wouldn't be able to make one. Occasionally one might make his bomb. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a bomb than with a gun (Timing on the explosive, placing it where it can't be seen or found but can still kill a large quantity of people etc). Columbine is a wonderful example. Klebold and Harris placed 3 bombs in the school, as well as shooting 13 people. The bombs were found to be inert because they screwed up the bomb making process. As far as knives go, the same week as Newtown, a man stabbed 22 people in China... killed zero. Nuff said.

Feel free to add more arguments.

Grab a wine glass. Fill it with gasoline. Put Congradulations, you have made a bomb in 30 seconds.

Just so we are clear, less crimes are committed with the shotguns and rifles this bill will outright ban than knives currently in the US.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked