Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Don't ask "Why ban assault weapons?" Ask "Why permit them?"


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 111 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 23, 2012 12:48:37 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
For the purpose of this argument I'm defining "assault weapon" as any firearm design to accept extended magazines (including drum magazines), along with those extended magazines.

Every single thread in this forum about assault weapons has talked about whether to ban them or not.

But how about taking a step back. Assume there were no assault weapons out there, and the gun makers' lobby--the NRA--announced their decision to sell such guns.

What would be the reason to permit them to do so?

They're inferior to hunting rifles for hunting. To shotguns for home defense. Lotsa fun on the firing range, but not if it lets psychos express their hatred of humans with them, methinks.

The only reason I could imagine would be some postapocalyptic scenario where the nation dissolves and it's all militia-on-militia action...

But does anyone have a rational reason why an industrialized constitutional democracy should permit military weapons in private hands?

And yes, they're military weapons. The mostly cosmetic mods deceive no one.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 1:08:08 PM PST
Yog-Sothoth says:
Well, for one thing, weapons that fit the true category of "assault weapons" (most basic requirement is "capable of fully-automatice fire") are NOT available to the general public; have NOT been used in any "mass shooting sprees", and can only be owned by those who go through an extensive and expensive background check and licensing procedure - since the 1930's. (before then, they WERE legal, and we had fewer shootings)

"The mostly cosmetic mods deceive no one." - it is OBVIOUS they decieve a lot. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (expired 2004) banned semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols based on ONLY two criteria: magazine capacity and COSMETIC appearances.

At a public demonstration back in 1992, a demonstrator held up two rifles: one was a semiautomatic carbine commonly purchased for rabbit and squirrel hunting and "plinking" (target shooting). It had a plain, wooden stock, a small 4x scope, and a 10-round magazine. The other semiauto had a skeletonized, folding stock, muzzle brake, "sniper"scope, bipod, and a 50-round magazine. The crowd was asked "Which should be banned?", and the crown unanumously shouted to ban the "assault rifle"...despite the fact that BOTH rifles were the SAME (Ruger 10-22 models) - one was just "dressed up" with all the expensive add-ons.

Kinda like mounting a blower through the hood of a Prius - it may LOOK like a nasty muscle car, but that doesn't make it one.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 1:18:21 PM PST
Kinda like mounting a blower through the hood of a Prius - it may LOOK like a nasty muscle car, but that doesn't make it one.

TSNTPW: And why should the ban be based on its "look" and not its functionality.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 2:14:48 PM PST
Yog-Sothoth says:
"TSNTPW: And why should the ban be based on its "look" and not its functionality."

That's the EXACT same non-sequitur posed in the 1990's: By banning "assault weapons"* on their looks rather than their function (ACTUAL assault weapons were ALREADY banned, since 1934), they were passing simply a "cosmetic" law that did nothing - but LOOKED like it did.

*"assault weapon", as the term is so commonly MISUSED; that is a "scary-looking" rifle that "looks" like a military weapon or machine gun.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 4:20:11 PM PST
"TSNTPW: And why should the ban be based on its "look" and not its functionality."

YS: That's the EXACT same non-sequitur posed in the 1990's: By banning "assault weapons"* on their looks rather than their function (ACTUAL assault weapons were ALREADY banned, since 1934), they were passing simply a "cosmetic" law that did nothing - but LOOKED like it did.

*"assault weapon", as the term is so commonly MISUSED; that is a "scary-looking" rifle that "looks" like a military weapon or machine gun.

TSNTPW: Then we should FIX that!
Next?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 4:24:29 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Dec 23, 2012 4:39:57 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 4:26:29 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 4:28:22 PM PST
Start off with it's a constitutional right and work backwards from there.

Or put it in terms of something you liberals love to use in order to put criminals back on the street based on a technicality: Don't ask "Can the police get a search warrant?" Ask "Why require them at all?"

Next read the national gun laws, and you'll see that assault rifles are already strictly regulated. We know that no assault rifle was used in any of the school shootings (no selective fire), so unless you're engaged in a campaign of lies and confusion, your question doesn't apply to the current debate.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 4:31:25 PM PST
Where in the Constitution does it specify an entitlement to assault weapons ?

You morons talk about voluminous firepower as if it's as innocent, tame and safe as fishing rods or ping pong paddles. Newsflash -- it ain't !

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 4:39:58 PM PST
JAP: Next read the national gun laws, and you'll see that assault rifles are already strictly regulated.

TSNTPW: What a joke.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 5:17:28 PM PST
Snowman1/3 says:
Parker: Start off with it's a constitutional right and work backwards from there.

Snow: If you start that way your argument will look contrived because you will be disregarding over 200 years of constitutional law. The simple fact is that it wasn't until Scalia in 2008 used mumbo jumbo rationale to tell everyone that the constitution was referring to individual rights in the second amendment. Scalia totally threw out Stare Decisis and deliberately engaged in judicial activism with Heller. He decided it was his views, not the constitution's, which should hold sway. And a few years later, in the Mcdonald case, the 2nd amendment was incorporated. Which means that all of this debate over the meaning of the amendment has only been a national issue since the NRA and conservative justices had their say on what our gun policy is. So, you start there, with the courts, and try to defend something that is only a few years old. Gun advocates will start where it really matters, national public safety.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 5:23:03 PM PST
south texas says:
no they are not assault weapons and before your crusade you could at least learn what it is you hate so much. it is a cool polymer metal attachments and your grandfathers deer rifle.

also they have been made in the US since 1961 and millions upon millions have been imported into the US so the door is already open.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 5:45:12 PM PST
Debunker says:
yeah...it's a consitutional "right" to own a weapon that can slaughter 20 school kids in the blink of an eye.

What's so hard to understand about that?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 5:55:43 PM PST
I think he is referring to fully automatic weapons aka machine guns, which have been strictly regulated since 1934.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 11:28:52 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: assault weapon definition

Knowledgeable gun owners know they're lying when they say their AR-15 isn't an assault weapon just because it can't fire on full auto like an M-16 can.

They think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the gun-ignorant public with legalistic twaddle like this.

An AR-15 with a 100-round drum magazine firing .223 rounds at three times the muzzle velocity of a .22 can empty its magazine in under a minute in the hands of any bump-firing shooter who doesn't have arthritis, and if those shots hit a human target, each will most likely drop that person, because they have so much impact on a human body. After emptying the drum the gun may jam then or start cooking off rounds, but a suicide-slaughterer could care less.

That's a quacks like a duck, walks like a duck assault weapon. As is a Glock 19 with a 33-round extended magazine. And you gun types know why I mentioned that one in particular.

As for the assault gun appearance, that's a separate issue. You could design a non-assault gun to look like one. But it would still be an assault weapon IF it accepted extended magazines and could be fired as fast as you could pull the trigger--especially if it was designed for one of the mankiller rounds like the .223 (as opposed to the squirrel-killer .22 round).

The "assault gun" look is there for a separate reason--it's a look that SELLS. Gun nuts want to look like commandos, and a gun that looks like a commando weapon does the trick.

But I don't see why anyone should care about how a gun looks. Adding that to the 1994 so-called Assault Weapons Ban just made the law look silly, and showed that the framers of the law either hadn't done their homework or let the NRA bamboozle them.

I'd be fine with the gun makers selling commando wannabe weapons as long as they were designed to not accept extended magazines, along with restrictions about certain types of ammo, and of course banning extended magazines themselves..

One other thing these gun nuts are lying to us about is the idea that we're trying to ban ALL guns, and that the 2nd Amendment permits ALL guns. Neither is true and they know it.

Military aircraft often have a mechanism that fires metallic chaff into the sky behind the craft to fool the "seek" systems of incoming missiles.

Now the gun nuts are trying to do the same to us.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 11:42:32 PM PST
C. Batty says:
Guns are tools. You need to pick the tool that fits the task at hand. A combat assault rifle is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible in combat. Unless you are preapring for combat you do not need one. And, in fact, getting a gun for self defense requires careful consideration. For starters, the average person can move 21 feet in the time it takes you to assess a threat, draw your gun and fire. Also, if you are a woman, you don't need a gun that fires 30 shots. You need a gun that fires three shots. If you cannot take your attacker down in 3 shots, you basically just handed him a loaded gun.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 11:48:32 PM PST
Shain Edge says:
The way the amendment was worded requires assault weapons to be part of the arms that people have a right to.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:07:55 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
Re: The way the amendment was worded requires assault weapons to be part of the arms that people have a right to.

The Supreme Court of the United States gets to decide what it means, not you (and not me). I think it means "flintlocks" and nothing else. You think it means RPGs and M249s and shoulder-fired Stingers and TOW anti-tank systems, obviously. Thank God the SCOTUS isn't that out of touch with reality.

The Supreme Court allowed reasonable regulation of guns. It did not endorse "any firearm at all." So until you get on the Supreme Court yourself, along with four other like-minded gunsels, your rejection of the SCOTUS decision and a buck will get you a ride on the bus.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:10:56 AM PST
Suze says:
What I want to know is how is it we allow people to buy and sell these things without requiring them to be registered.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:15:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 12:16:04 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: who needs what

I just watched the Piers Morgan show on this subject. One guest was a cop who was off-duty and attending church when she heard a shooter killing people. She was able to take him out. Not because she was armed--though she needed to be and I'm fine with copy packing when they're off-duty--but because she was trained by what she learned in the Police Academy and by years on the job as a working cop. Even then the guy nearly got her.

But what if she were a vet just back from Kandahar Province with a headful of PTSD? Maybe she'd hear a car backfire and start shooting.

So the gun-bearer needs to be trained, current in their training, and fully sane. Otherwise they're kidding themselves. And of course there was the skilled gun owner who was present at the Gabby Giffords massacre but said he couldn't get a shot off because there were too many people milling around the shooter.

We need crazy people who are potentially murderous not to be able to get their hands on assault weapons. We need to institutionalize the ones we can identify as nuts and dangerous, and we need assault weapons to not be get-able.

Which means a huge, expensive mandatory buy-back program for all the ones out there now. We can donate them to the Syrian militia fighting Assad but not Jihadi (right now it's the Jihadi who have the most firepower).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:18:31 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: how is it we allow people to buy and sell these things without requiring them to be registered.

Thank the gun makers' lobby's political arm, otherwise known as the Republican Party. The NRA's official ranting wouldn't matter if the Republican Party didn't sign onto every word emitted from Wayne LaPierre's mouth.

You could make a violence porn film comprised solely of what he's said after every massacre.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:25:17 AM PST
What a load of ignorant crap.

The kind of ignorance that comes of actually being ignorant of the topic of which you speak. You know as much about firearms as you know about top fuel dragsters or industrial mining equipment.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:27:34 AM PST
Second Amendment advocates will not tolerate any registration scheme because we've seen where that led in Australia.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:47:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 12:48:25 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: ignorant

Telling people who disagree with your that they're stupid really gets your point across. It also tells me that you can't actually refute what I've said, so you fall back on insults.

And here's a news flash for the gun crowd: guns aren't rocket science. A lot of anti-gun people are completely ignorant about them, but not all are. I haven't touched a gun in decades but I did qualify Expert on the M1 in boot camp. And as you probably know, that is a gas-operated semiautomatic weapon. I also fired the Colt .45 handgun and couldn't hit a thing with it, to be honest.

And how do you know I don't know anything about top fuel dragsters or industrial mining equipment?

Here's a little factoid: for two years I was president of a motorcycle club that did illegal street racing on the weekends, along with maintaining all our own machines.

Sounds like you have a stereotype of the gun regulation crown as hankie-waving pansies who swoon at the sight of blood and wouldn't be able to shoot a gun at someone even if to defend their life. That's true for some, not for others.

Once a guy in our club got severely injured trying to keep up with those of us who'd been street racing for years. I cradled him in my arms for 45 minutes until the ambulance arrived, trying to keep him alive. He was already brain-dead but I couldn't know that. I did it because his best friend, who was another racer, was too overcome with grief to be useful.

I'm sure plenty of other people who favor gun regulation could tell stories like this.

So..try again. And remember, I'm fine with y'all having any kind of hunting rifle or handgun that can't accept extended cartridges, or shotgun that meets current regs (loved the scene in Terminator II where Sarah Conner fought the terminator one-handed with a pump-action shotgun; very, very badass of her).

As for registration, what gun owners will or will not tolerate isn't up to gun owners, however much they like to huff & puff. It's up to the voters, the laws, and the courts.

Australia is the American gun owner's boogeyman now because they did what I'd like to see happen--but it won't because Australia doesn't have the 2nd Amendment. But I hope that as a patriotic, law-abiding American you'll obey even laws you don't like--because that's what we do in a constitutional democracy.

So if the law says you have to register your guns and it passes the constitutional muster of SCOTUS, you'll just have to register your guns.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 1:13:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 1:13:53 AM PST
I seem to keep running across this problem here.

I am specifically NOT calling you, "stupid." There are many words that I could, and have, used on people I truly believed deserved that adjective. I did not apply it to you. I used the word, "ignorant," because you just don't understand the topic.

I began reading about the types of operation of various types of munitions when I was in junior high school. I studied all the firearms designed in the Twentieth Century, particularly those employed during WWII, and contemporary ones, beginning when I was in high school. I've owned some of these weapons and disassembled them to examine their operating systems. I've fired rifles and handguns of various calibers and know how difficult it is to fire controlled shots from them. I have handled a semi-automatic version of an AK-47 with a 75-round drum, and I know the effect it has on the weight and balance of the weapon.

You just don't know those things. You're talking about firing 100 rounds in a minute from a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine, which is crazy! Even if it had some kind of drum magazine, which, on a rifle as light as a Bushmaster, would practically make it an ammo crate in a stick, you'd need a spring steel index finger and a forearm like Popeye to accomplish it, which no real human has. There's a reason that such an operation is carried out automatically on a real assault rifle. If real soldiers could do it, they wouldn't need the selector lever. If I try to move my finger on a trigger 100 times in a minute, it looks like I have cerebral palsy before I'm even finished.

If the Supreme Court tried to let pass a registration scheme, I would not register my guns, and neither would millions of others. We saw where that led in Australia.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 2:05:11 AM PST
That is exactly the wrong question. When talking about restricting a peoples freedoms, we don't ask why NOT. Should we ask "why not restrict racist speech?" or "why shouldn't we just throw child rapists in jail without a trial if we know their guilty?"? No. The benefit of the doubt should ALWAYS go towards awarding people greater freedom. Asking "why not restrict peoples freedom?" instead of "why restrict it?" is exactly the WRONG way to do things.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  34
Total posts:  111
Initial post:  Dec 23, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 27, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions