Why should I not be allowed to own a Assault rifle?

[thomas82]

First of all I am using the VPC/AW ban definition of an Assault weapon which is: a semi Auto rifle that accepts detachable magazines, has a pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug and collapsible/folding stock.
Thanks in advance
Tom

[MrBenchley]

1. Because it's a public menace

that should not be sold to civilians...

[FeebMaster]

5. How are they a public menace?

How often are they used in crime? How many people are killed with AWs compared to other guns?

[MrBenchley]

12. With every post, the schtick gets staler....

"Since enactment of the federal assault-weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 66 percent. That's why virtually every federal, state and local law enforcement association supports pending legislation that will reauthorize the current ban. Since its passage, this legislation has been instrumental in increasing public safety, lowering incidents of violent crime and keeping new caches of these dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, street gangs, drug traffickers and terrorists."

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~2334862,00.html

[FeebMaster]

15. Kind of dishonest, don't you think?

Since post-ban weapons aren't counted as assault weapons and all. Why don't you show me some solid numbers showing how many are killed every year by assault weapons and how many are killed by post-ban weapons and other firearms?

[library_max]

17. Because the Republicans in Congress intervened

to prevent those figures from being counted as such.

[FeebMaster]

18. What are you talking about?

Why would you want post-ban weapons counted when talking about number of people killed by assault weapons? Then you wouldn't be able to say "Hey look assault weapons crime dropped 66%!" You'd have to say, "Oh look, assault weapons crime stayed about the same. Hardly any at all."

[library_max]

33. As you know, crime statistics are generated by the government.

Federal crime statistics are generated by the federal government. And yet there are no such figures as those you demand, comparing assault weapons to other kinds of weapons. If you think I'm wrong, show me the figures and the source.

[FeebMaster]

38. Here.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999html/ycgii/index.htm

[library_max]

40. There's not a single figure in there about assault weapons per se. /nt

[Wcross]

41. If you bothered to look you would see

That in the top ten long guns traced to violent crimes the SKS is number three after 12 guage shotguns and .22 rifles. Of course the SKS is not considered an "assualt rifle" by the AWB. Down the list the ar-15 is also mentioned. So in the top ten long guns traced from crimes, only one is a so called "assualt weapon". Seems to me we should outlaw shotguns and .22 rifles and make a real dent in firearms crime. I know the AWb makes you "feel" good but it does little to stem gun violence.

[library_max]

51. That doesn't change the fact that there are no figures on assault weapons.

Feeb is demanding figures that simply do not exist.

[Wcross]

55. Again, you failed to look.

Take a minute to look at the link, Of the top ten long guns traced to crime only one is covered by the ban.

[library_max]

64. That's not the same as figures comparing assault weapons to other weapons.

[Wcross]

67. They have a list of makes and models of the top ten.

The other nine are not assualt weapons. How simple can it be unless you don't know which rifle is covered by the ban and which is not.

[library_max]

70. Because the top ten aren't all the figures.

Feeb is asking for figures comparing assault weapons in general to other firearms in general. Figures for ten firearms out of hundreds aren't going to get it.

[FeebMaster]

45. I know, but as I said in the other post

you'll have to do some figuring on your own. You can eliminate a lot of weapons that aren't AWs. Use the process of elimination. Let us know what you come up with.

[library_max]

53. This is bull and you know it.

You demand figures on assault weapons when you know that such figures don't exist. Now you want to pretend that I can come up with those figures myself using "the process of elimination." The word "disingenuous" was created for just this kind of situation.

[FeebMaster]

54. Fine.

It's all the Republicans fault. They probably edited that data to make it look like pump action 12 GA shotguns and .22s are the weapons of choice for criminals to hide the truth that it's really assault weapons.

[library_max]

95. In 1996, Congress forbade the CDC to compile statistics and reports

in favor of gun control laws. The ATF also stopped keeping distinct statistics on assault weapons used in crime in 1996. Now remind me - which party controlled Congress in 1996?

[FeebMaster]

97. Uh huh

it's all the Republicans' fault. I'm sure some little man with a big eraser took all of those assault weapons out of the top 10 and made it look like handguns were used in the vast majority of crimes. All those pump action shotguns that were mentioned? Actually AR-15s with bayonet lugs before that Republican got to them. All those .22 rifles? Formerly semi-auto AK-47 clones with folding stocks. Damn those Republicans!

[library_max]

103. The top ten's got nothing to do with it.

You demanded comparative figures for firearms generally. Here is your exact quote:

"Why don't you show me some solid numbers showing how many are killed every year by assault weapons and how many are killed by post-ban weapons and other firearms?"

That's got nothing to do with the top ten. When assault weapons comprise only one to two percent of firearms in circulation, do you seriously expect them to figure prominently in the top ten individual firearms used in crimes?

Oh lordy lordy - "do you seriously . . . ?" Forgot who I was talking to.

[FeebMaster]

106. Hey I'm not running around claiming that

assault weapons are a public menace and widely used in crime.

[library_max]

107. No.

You're just running around demanding numbers that you know don't exist.

[FeebMaster]

108. Right.

So are Assault Weapons widely used in crime or not?

[library_max]

118. Well, according to figures slackmaster found,

assault weapons have dropped from 8.2 percent of all firearms used in crime (before the ban) to 1.22 percent in 2002, the latest figure available. You want to compare that to the fact that assault weapons make up between one and two percent of the total firearms in circulation. So I guess the answer would be, they used to be used in crime out of proportion to their numbers, but not so much any more, thanks to the ban.

[FeebMaster]

120. Alright, let's just assume for a minute that those numbers

are accurate. You do understand that post-ban weapons wouldn't be included in that 1.22 percent figure, right? So an AR-15 clone manufactured before the ban with a flash suppressor and bayonet lug would be in that 1.22 percent but an AR-15 clone manufactured after the ban without a bayonet lug or flash suppressor wouldn't be a part of that 1.22 percent but just in the general rifle category.

[library_max]

122. Regarding post-ban weapons, I don't know. Ask slack.

Or Chuck Schumer, from whose website those figures came. Anyhow, before the ban, assault weapons were used in crimes out of proportion to their number in circulation by a factor of four or more.

[FeebMaster]

123. I don't need to ask slackmaster, he knows.

I'm asking you if you understand that the 1.22 percent figure would include pre-ban weapons but not post-ban weapons since post-ban weapons aren't legally considered assault weapons.

So, for example, an AR-15 clone manufactured in 1993 with a flash suppressor and bayonet lug would be in that 1.22%, but an AR-15 clone manufactured in 1999 without a flash suppressor or bayonet lug wouldn't be in that 1.22%.

[library_max]

133. I'm not sure what difference your question makes.

Any response to the fact that assault weapons were used in crime out of proportion to their presence in circulation by a factor of four or more?

[FeebMaster]

143. I'm simply asking if you understand why

the number dropped from 8% to 1% and if you understand that the other 7% that's no longer being counted could easily still be there.


Any response to the fact that assault weapons were used in crime out of proportion to their presence in circulation by a factor of four or more?

I've given those numbers the benefit of the doubt for the sake of discussing why the percentage dropped. I'd prefer to see harder data and at least a list of the weapons included in the percentage before commenting on assault weapons being used in crime out of proportion to their presence in circulation.

[library_max]

149. Here are the statements with the numbers and their links.

"According to the most recent statistics made by the ATF, in 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent."

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01706.html

"I found an article on Senator Schumer's site that says the number of assault weapons traced to crimes was 3.57% in 1995 and has dropped steadily since then, reaching 1.22% in 2002."

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02151.html

If you want to quarrel with the numbers, go for it. Maybe you can produce better ones, from a more reliable source than the ATF.

And can you support, or at least explain, what you mean by the 7% that is no longer being counted?

[FeebMaster]

152. I read the links.

As I said, I'm not interested in discussing, let alone quarreling about them without more information, at least a list of the firearms involved.


And can you support, or at least explain, what you mean by the 7% that is no longer being counted?

Yes. Let's say, to keep this simple, that that 8.2% in 1993 was all AR-15 clones. In 1993, AR-15 clones came with bayonets and flash suppressors and in 1994 all of those AR-15 clones became assault weapons when the AWB passed. Starting in 1994, AR-15 clones didn't have flash suppressors or bayonet lugs anymore and weren't considered assault weapons. So you can see that the percentage dropped not because fewer AR-15 clones were being used, but because no newly manufactured AR-15 clones were being counted in that percentage, only ones manufactured before the AWB was passed.

[library_max]

155. You have no basis for making that assumption. /nt

[FeebMaster]

157. What assumption? (nt)

[slackmaster]

140. When was the last time you found a silver dime in circulation?

:dunce:

[library_max]

141. Oh, that's the difference. The silver dime difference. I was wondering.

:crazy:

[slackmaster]

144. Is there a significant difference between pre-ban and post-ban?

If you think there is, please enlighten us.

[library_max]

150. A significant difference between pre-ban and post-ban what?

Assault weapons? Crime statistics? Music videos? What?

[slackmaster]

166. 1955 Chevrolet

What the hell do you think I mean?

[thomas82]

47. let me ask you this Mrbenchy

how many semi auto rifles(not handguns) have been used in crime/murders in the last 10 years. And please if all you have is a rant filled with profanity just ignore this post.
Tom

[MrBenchley]

73. Gee, tom.....the answer is too goddamn many

[Fescue4u]

75. Some people never deal in facts.

The gun grabbers generally just cite emotionalism, or generalisms like "to many".

When it comes to real facts, figures and logic, they usually run away or start just insulting people.

[MrBenchley]

77. Childishly pouting "I wa-a-a-ant one" seems like a fact, fescue?

Here's a fact....there's no reason to have to wait until we have a bunch of tragedies before we keep these weapons out of the hands of trigger-happy loonies and criminals...any more than we have to wait for actual explosions to keep plastic explosive out of the hobby shops or a gas attack to keep ricin off the drug store shelves.

[Fescue4u]

85. It is a fact.

Whats wrong benchy? that post remind you of someone we know?

Nonethless.

I'm an American. Its my civil right to own a gun. I want a gun.

Im an American. Its my civil right to speak out. I want to speak out.

Any other civil liberties that you have a problem with

[library_max]

88. God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

We keep seeing that formulation, always on the same side of the debate.

[MrBenchley]

93. Let the eagle soar-r-r-r-r-r-r

And the pro-gun democrats roar-r-r-r-r-r-r
It's still the same stale bullshit as befor-r-r-r-r-r-r-re....

[Fescue4u]

98. If you are waiting for me to defend Ashcroft

Perhaps you should hold your breath.

[MrBenchley]

99. Gee, fescue....

You sure don't have any problem repeating Crisco John's lies....

[Fescue4u]

101. Keep holding your breath

[MrBenchley]

111. Don't have to....

In your very next post, you repeated Crisco John's lie...

[Fescue4u]

115. Whatever.

My kids has to always try to get the last word in to.

Ah, the mind of a child :)

[Fescue4u]

100. Actually, a bunch of dead guys said it

And put into the consitutition, both the Federal and my state.
(and in my case the state provisions are much stronger than the federal ones)

If you feel different, start a petition to amend the Federal and 40ish state consitutions (that establish arms ownership as a civil right)

[library_max]

104. The federal Constitution is fine.

Miller and every other Second Amendment court case have ruled that there is no RKBA outside of the context of the armed citizen militia, which doesn't exist any more (recent court cases confirm that view also). And the state constitutions aren't a serious obstacle. They conflict with state law all the time and nobody makes a successful legal challenge.

That bunch of dead guys didn't say what you think they said. They said "well regulated militia".

[Fescue4u]

114. Not the dead guys in my state

Seriously, in the case of Ohio, there is no militia clause.

In fact the Ohio supreme court recently ruled that open carry is a fundamental right.

[library_max]

116. Federal gun laws are the only kind that have any chance of working anyway.

nt

[MrBenchley]

92. Nothing's wrong, fescue...come back when you get a fact

"I'm an American. Its my civil right to own a gun."
Not even close to true.

Meanwhile, since you bring up civil rights...funny how the fuckwits that the gun lobby supports and vice versa (like the Second Amendment Caucus) are the ones most opposed to REAL civil rights, isn't it? But then it's not much of a mystery what's really lurking under the "gun rights" sheet...




And one of the pro gun democrats was even kind enough to post that essay telling us how much gun guys hate Democrats for the civil rights movement...

[skippythwndrdog]

76. My response. (Props to DU'er John Locke)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=755623#756014

[iverglas]

181. John Locke, you say?

And once again, I am unable to resist.

RED MAPLE MENACE - A Letter from Soviet Canuckistan

The United States is a one-myth culture. The Federalist Papers read like John Locke having a conversation with himself, and your history is just an extended working out of the philosopher's ideas about individualism, private property, and the state. In the United States, the capitalists have acquired a monopoly on patriotism, and your response to other ideologies alternates between xenophobic isolationism and messianic internationalism. (See the recent resumé of George W. Bush for achievement on both alternatives.) The upshot is a country where the political ideology of market populism masquerades as nationalism, and where there is a free market in everything except good ideas.

Oh, and I just found this and quite like it, too:

A Non-Libertarian FAQ

The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

... There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a _damn_ what the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be questioned."

Jefferson himself said this plainly: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Suddenly I find myself filled with new admiration for that obviously sadly misinterpreted Mr. Jefferson.

A more complete version is here:
http://www.webwhiteandblue.com/jefferson/rights/rights_pg3.html

And there's also:

I am among those who think well of the human character generally. I consider man as formed for society, and endowed by nature with those dispositions which fit him for society…that his mind is perfectible to a degree of which we cannot as yet form any conception. It is impossible for a man who takes a survey of what is already known, not to see what an immensity in every branch of science yet remains to be discovered, & that too of articles to which our faculties seem adequate…I join you therefore in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advances. This is precisely the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating, & their friends here re-echoing; & applying especially to religion & politics; `that it is not probable that any thing better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers.' We are to look backwards then & not forwards for the improvement of science, & to find it amidst feudal barbarisms and the fires of Spital-fields. But thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened, to listen to these impostures; and while the art of printing is left to us, science can never be retrograde; what is once acquired of real knowlege can never be lost. To preserve the freedom of the human mind then & freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, & speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement. The generation which is going off the stage has deserved well of mankind for the struggles it has made, & for having arrested that course of despotism which had overwhelmed the world for thousands & thousands of years. If there seems to be danger that the ground they have gained will be lost again, that danger comes from the generation your cotemporary. But that the enthusiasm which characterises youth should lift its parricide hands against freedom & science, would be such a monstrous phaenomenon as I cannot place among possible things in this age & this country.”

Not tea bag for an old dead white guy ... even if his optimism about the openness of certain minds has proved somewhat unwarranted.

Now, keeping all this in mind, what do we suppose he would he be saying about assault weapons ...?

I just bet he wouldn't like 'em as much as he'd like indoor plumbing.

And I even suspect that he would think it more important for the people to have indoor plumbing -- and thus that he would support the surveying of the people to determine the state of their plumbing, f'r instance -- than for the people to have assault weapons.

[FeebMaster]

182. Actually, he said DUer John Locke.

I think JohnLocke's post is even more appropriate now.

[iverglas]

183. nooo

"Actually, he said DUer John Locke."

Gee. I guess I just must have missed that altogether, eh?

I think JohnLocke's post is even more appropriate now.

Do you imagine that I thought that the use of JohnLocke's post was about as clever as you purport to think my post was?

Do you imagine that other people are not really as dim as you folks, um, seem to think they are ... and that the problem may actually be on the receiving rather than the transmitting end?

If you overhear someone speaking Swahili and you don't understand what s/he is saying, do you automatically decide that s/he is speaking gibberish, and hold up a sign?

, eh?

And who is it who ends up looking like the moran?

[iverglas]

184. btw

Someone might want to try following the breadcrumbs.

The post in response to which JohnLocke's post was used read as follows:

<Why should I not be allowed to own a Assault rifle?>
Because it's a public menace that should not be sold to civilians...

and of course was signed off with a quote from FDR -- the guy who included that "freedom from fear, freedom from want" stuff in the four big "freedoms".

Strikes me that my comments were pretty bang on when it came to the nature and quality of the post I was responding to as a response to that post.

I suspect that even old Tom Jefferson might have agreed with FDR, had he been around in the dirty thirties -- and with MrBenchley, were he around now. As I mentioned.

I'm kinda sure that old Tom Paine would have, in both cases:

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my people are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive..., when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and its government."

Of course, he'd also probably be looking for a means of killing himself quickly and cleanly, were he alive today ...

[FeebMaster]

185. Hmm.

"Gee. I guess I just must have missed that altogether, eh?"

Apparently.

Do you imagine that I thought that the use of JohnLocke's post was about as clever as you purport to think my post was?

I didn't read your post. Apparently, you were going on about John Locke when the post you were responding to was referring to a post by DUer JohnLocke. I make no judgment, therefor, on whether your post was clever or not.

Do you imagine that other people are not really as dim as you folks, um, seem to think they are ... and that the problem may actually be on the receiving rather than the transmitting end?

Well, there are certainly dim folks out there. There's no denying that.


"And who is it who ends up looking like the moran?"

Bandwidth thieves who aren't careful about hotlinking images.

[iverglas]

186. oh yeah

Apparently, you were going on about John Locke when the post you were responding to was referring to a post by DUer JohnLocke.

And that post, of course, just appeared by magic on the board, and not in response to another post at all ...

No, here we all be, just posting random babbling.

Odd how your entire point seems to be that my post was not responsive to the one I responded to ... when that was precisely my entire point about the post I had responded to ...

That would kinda make the joke on you, eh?

And once again, the pride that some folks seem to take in not reading the posts they respond to ... well, one can only shake one's head in wonder and watch them rubbing their bitten bums, or pretending not to notice the chomping ... or, sadly, really not noticing it ...

[FeebMaster]

187. Right.

"And that post, of course, just appeared by magic on the board, and not in response to another post at all ...

I wonder if you've read JohnLocke's post.


No, here we all be, just posting random babbling.

Apparently.


Odd how your entire point seems to be that my post was not responsive to the one I responded to ... when that was precisely my entire point about the post I had responded to ...

I really wonder if you read JohnLocke's post.


That would kinda make the joke on you, eh?

It's possible.


And once again, the pride that some folks seem to take in not reading the posts they respond to ... well, one can only shake one's head in wonder and watch them rubbing their bitten bums, or pretending not to notice the chomping ... or, sadly, really not noticing it

There's no pride involved. I just didn't want to be rude and give you the impression that I'd read your post when I hadn't. By the way, did you read JohnLocke's post?

[iverglas]

188. once more, very slowly

The perceptive reader, reading my "John Locke, you say?" post, would have realized that I was responding to someone who had responded to this:

<Why should I not be allowed to own a Assault rifle?>
Because it's a public menace that should not be sold to civilians...

by saying

Think before you say something stupid

by saying Think before you say something stupid. Only in ever such a more elegant manner. And by saying a few things about how civilized societies do things, that were actually relevant to the point of the first post -- that "public menace" one.

Or, as I already said:

Odd how your entire point seems to be that my post was not responsive to the one I responded to ... when that was precisely my entire point about the post I had responded to ...

I hope I've cleared this up for you now.

[FeebMaster]

189. Are you really sure you read JohnLocke's post? (nt)

[iverglas]

190. what a very odd question

Why on earth would I read a post I was responding to?

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

192. Just checking. (nt)

[amber dog democrat]

2. If you want one, its fine with me.

and in that case, I would LOVE to have an M14.
they're quite accurate and powerful.

[Wcross]

57. Most accurate rifle I own

You forgot simple. They are easy to break down and clean. They use a bolt and reciever(sp) similar to the battle tested M1 Garand but a lighter cartridge with similar ballistics to the >30-06 M1.
I wouldn't be without one.

[amber dog democrat]

58. what kind do you have >

also... what are your thoughts on the M1 ? I am still very fond of the 1903-A3 Springfield.

[Wcross]

63. I have the springfield M1a.

It's a low serial number I bought it used 10 years ago. My old school buddy is a m1 fanatic- he owns 4 of them, three are world war two vintage and one was a knockoff by century arms. They all shoot great and accurate as any rifle has a right to be. I do find the metal butt plate harder on the shoulder than the M1a in .308.
The 1903 is a great gun, just not many floating around in good shape.

[FeebMaster]

3. You should probably ask

"Why should I not be allowed to own an Assault Weapon?" even though you clarified in your post that you were referring to assault weapons. The subject makes it sound like you're asking "why should I not be allowed to own a machine gun?"

Personally I think you should be able to own anything you want.

[kiahzero]

7. To clarify that statement:

Personally I think you should be able to own anything you want.

Any qualifications you want to put on that, or are you content with it as it stands?

[FeebMaster]

9. I'm quite content with it as it stands. (nt)

[kiahzero]

11. OK then

Do you not feel that the government has a compelling interest in banning the sale of fragmentation grenades? Stinger missles? Plastic explosives? VX gas? Weaponized smallpox?

After all, if you feel that "... you should be able to own anything you want," then you should have no issue with these items being sold on the open market.

[FeebMaster]

13. What, no nuclear weapons?

Well we were discussing firearms, so I'd think it reasonable to limit what I said to firearms and other things covered by federal firearms law, like explosives.

[kiahzero]

16. OK, so that would be the limitation on your statement

That was why I asked for clarification - it seemed like you were just talking about firearms, but then you said it was fine as is.

[FeebMaster]

19. I thought it was clear

and implied since we were discussing a federal firearms law and the weapons regulated by it.

[thomas82]

43. I was not trying to confuse anyone

and if so I apologize. I was not in any way referring to real assault weapons. As I can already buy real Assault weapons as they are heavily controlled by the ATF. I would love to have a real M16 but I don't have the spare $16,000.
Tom

[DODI]

4. Why should you be allowed to own one?

I have never had this adequately explained to me. Thanks.

[FeebMaster]

6. That's another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=79148&mesg_id=79148

[No2W2004]

8. Because the only reason to own such a weapon

would be to kill people. Target shooting, hunting, skeets, varmint control, protection, they can all be accomplished with any number of rifles, shotguns, and pistols, accompanied by a training program and regular practice.

There is no need for people to own Assault weapons.

[MrBenchley]

10. Exactly so...

[HereSince1628]

23. UR right in the first place U needn't bother with alternatives

Its about the majority of the publics consent to the concept that these firearms represent an unacceptable risk. Period.

It is, of course, the assault rifle advocates' right to try to change that perception. They try and they fail, but they are very determined. I expect many more posts of identical content on this topic.

[goju]

34. I agree

The majority of the public has indeed consented to the "concept" (not fact but suggestion) that these firearms "represent" (not create but symbolize) an unacceptable risk. Unfortunately, the "public" couldnt be less educated on those perceptions.

Not unlike the majority of the public who consented to the concept that invading Iraq was about terrorism.

[Wickerman]

14. thanks for providing the definition in your post!!

:thumbsup:

[thomas82]

52. You are welcome sir

I didn't want any confusion.
Tom

[HereSince1628]

20. Because without them WE THE PEOPLE cannot resist THEM.

Well, that covers the lunatic fringe anyway...

Why shouldn't you be allowed to drive a competition "rail" dragster on the street? It's a group decision on percieved safety. Its that simple. Cars on the street have to conform to standards that protect the percieved needs of public safety.

Individuals in democratic societies are expected to go along with group decisions which conform to constitutionally developed laws and regulations as reviewed by the actions of a judiciary.

No one says you can't complain about that, or yearn to have an assault rifle, or even beg people to change their perceptions about their safety...

But, for now, in some places you can't have one, because in their jurisdiction, for reasons that needn't be good or satisfactory to you, folks just have a majority feeling, which is expressed by their authority to act in ways that mandate you can't have one.

[library_max]

21. Except for the bayonet lug,

all of the features you describe are features that facilitate the use of a firearm in crime. Pistol grip and collapsible/folding stock make a weapon more concealable. A flash hider makes it harder to find a sniper. Detachable magazines facilitate drive-bys and other crime uses where a large output of bullets is desired.

None of these features has any relevance to any legal use of a firearm excepting the detachable magazine, which is convenient for target shooters. But in the balance between making gun crime more difficult and making target shooting more convenient, I think gun crime is slightly more important.

[FeebMaster]

22. How does a pistol grip make

a firearm more concealable since it protrudes more than a hand's width below the firearm? How does a collapsible stock make a firearm more concealable since stocks are available that are as short as collapsible stocks in their collapsed position, not to mention even with a collapsible stock a firearm has to meet the overall length requirement of 26" or run afoul of the NFA? How does a flash suppressor make it harder to find a sniper when guns are fucking loud and still have muzzle flash with or without a flash hider?



"But in the balance between making gun crime more difficult and making target shooting more convenient, I think gun crime is slightly more important."

How often are assault weapons used in crime compared to other weapons?

[OpSomBlood]

25. That's the kicker.

The anti-gunners are so busy bellowing about how banning "assault weapons" makes the streets so much safer...they conveniently neglect to mention that they are used in about 2% of gun crimes.

[slackmaster]

26. Careful, Feeb

Don't ask for any actual proof that AWs facilitate crime, beyond "because I said so". You might get accused of using an RW tactic.

[FeebMaster]

31. I'm used to it.

When the NRA trained me to post here I took a special class to desensitize me to that sort of thing.

[slackmaster]

46. You owe my employer a new keyboard

This one's full of Coca-Cola spray.

[FeebMaster]

49. Send the tab to the NRA

they have a special fund for that sort of thing.

[Wickerman]

60. crap, I knew it

a friggin NRA plant. damn.

[FeebMaster]

62. Uh oh.

Once again I've let my terrible secret slip out.

[library_max]

65. Fear not.

You're tombstone-proof, as I've said before.

[FeebMaster]

66. Hardly.

What could possibly make me tombstone-proof? Other than not breaking the rules I mean.

[library_max]

68. Really?

To use the tactic you love so much - prove it!

[FeebMaster]

69. How?

By getting banned? What makes you think I'm tombstone proof? You've made the claim, you could at least give your reasoning. I'm not asking for proof, just your reasoning.

[library_max]

71. You're still here, aren't you? /nt

[FeebMaster]

72. How does that make me ban-proof?

Maybe I just follow the rules.

[TX-RAT]

102. "Release the hounds"

[library_max]

28. A pistol grip, at least potentially,

makes it possible to shorten the weapon without sacrificing stability. The fact that the gun industry has ducked around the collapsible stock issue doesn't mean it wasn't originally valid. 26 inches isn't very long - most rifles are a hell of a lot longer than that. Sound isn't directional - sight is. And there is no agency or organization that has access to the figures you keep demanding about assault weapons vs. other kinds of weapons. The Republicans in Congress made sure of that.

[slackmaster]

30. Flash suppressors do not hide the flash

They direct it away from the shooter's field of vision.

All that hot luminous plasma has to go somewhere, and it shure as shit isn't going to go back into the barrel once the bullet has taken flight. All a flash suppressor does is redirect the hot gas into some place other than the shooter's line of sight.

[OpSomBlood]

36. "Concealability" with regard to "assault weapons" is utterly laughable.

Really. Pistol grips were not invented to make a rifle concealable. Collapsable stocks were not invented for that reason either.

There is no way you're making a rifle with a 16" barrel "concealable" without a trenchcoat...in which case the "assault weapon" characteristics don't make any difference. So please join us in reality.

[FeebMaster]

37. Ducked around the collapsible stock issue?

How so? Short stocks were available before the ban. Of course most rifles are longer than 26". 10" isn't a lot of room to play with when you also have a minimum barrel length of 16".


"And there is no agency or organization that has access to the figures you keep demanding about assault weapons vs. other kinds of weapons. The Republicans in Congress made sure of that."

Uh huh. Then why don't you take this here data and figure it out. Take the totals for rifles and pistols and shotguns, then take the subcategories and subtract all the guns they list that aren't assault weapons. Not precise, I'll grant you, since not everything that's left will be an assault weapon, but the results should be interesting.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999html/ycgii/index.htm

Section 2-4 is what you're looking for. Let us know what you find out.

[slackmaster]

79. Pretty weak rationalization

And there is no agency or organization that has access to the figures you keep demanding about assault weapons vs. other kinds of weapons. The Republicans in Congress made sure of that.

The ban was passed in 1994 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Supporters of the AW ban have had a full decade to make a case for renewing the ban. I don't buy the "GOP conspiracy to control crime statistics" excuse. If the authors of the ban failed to put into place an adequate system to monitor how the AWB affected crime, they're the ones to blame for the lack of data to justify a continuation of the ban.

Or maybe the Emperor really has no clothes after all.

[library_max]

84. In 1996, Congress forbade the CDC to gather statistics or issue reports

in support of gun control laws. And there's this from Chuck Schumer's website (statistics mine):

"According to the most recent statistics made by the ATF, in 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent."

Now remind me - who was in control of Congress in 1996? And do the ATF figures before 1996 support the premise that the AWB reduced the proportion of assault weapons used in crime, or do they not? Another thing to remember is that assault weapons make up 1% to 2% of all firearms in circulation, which makes a difference when you look at the percentage used in crimes.

[slackmaster]

91. Assault weapon statistics from 1993? That's a pretty good trick.

In 1993 there was no federal definition of "assault weapon", so how could anyone have been gathering statistics on assault weapons' use in crime in that year?

At the risk of making an unreasonable request, please cite when and how Congress stopped collection of AW-related statistics. I found an article on Senator Schumer's site that says the number of assault weapons traced to crimes was 3.57% in 1995 and has dropped steadily since then, reaching 1.22% in 2002.

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02151.html

Senator Schumer is contradicting YOUR claim that no statistics are available from after November 1996. Since the Senator is an honest guy I assume he's talking about actual assault weapons, i.e. the ones that pro-RKBA people call pre-ban. The stats don't surprise me given the steady increase in value of pre-ban weapons. They're mostly in the hands of affluent people and collectors and people over 40.

[library_max]

105. Well, here's my link, from the same website.

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01706.html

In your link, he refers to "new information," so maybe something became available between your article and mine, which was a year earlier.

Anyhoo, the numbers you've cited do appear to show that the AWB is cutting the percentage of crimes committed with assault weapons.

[slackmaster]

109. Yes, they do strongly suggest that...

...the AWB is cutting the percentage of crimes committed with assault weapons.

The connection seems pretty clear.

In 1964 President Johnson signed a bill to de-monetize silver. US quarters, dimes, and half-dollars were 90% silver up through 1964. In '65 quarters and dimes were converted to the present copper-nickel clad composition.

In 1965 it was common to find silver dimes and quarters in circulation. Until the late '70s the value of their silver content wasn't much more than the face value of the coins, and the fact that it's illegal to melt down US coins probably discouraged people from doing so, at least wholesale. So for at least a decade after the de-monitization of silver, a silver quarter was worth 25 cents, just like a clad one. But as you probably remember (being the same age as I), the percentage of silver coins in circulation dropped steadily, approaching but never quite reaching zero. (I found a silver dime in my change about a month ago, first one in years.) This happened because of the scarcity of silver coins; coin collectors immediately started hording the silver ones, hoping for a financial return in the long run.

I see no reason to believe that a post-ban, non-assault version of a pre-ban assault weapon has any less "value" in terms of its utility to commit crimes. Post-bans fire the same ammunition, one round at a time, and can accept the same detachable magazines as their pre-ban ancestors. Prices of post-bans have become inflated far beyond their intrinsic monetary value simply because of scarcity. Gun collectors have horded them out of hopes for financial gain and fear that they would never again be able to buy firearms in pre-ban configurations.

Rather than the percentage of assault weapons used in crime, a more meaningful question would be whether the ban has actually resulted in an increase in public safety. Are criminals really using less lethal weapons as a result of the ban?

The statistics that Senator Schumer cites don't shed any light on that question whatsoever.

[library_max]

117. "Are criminals really using less lethal weapons as a result of the ban?"

How in blue blazes could anyone possibly conduct a study that would answer that question - especially the "as a result of the ban" part?

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

35. I bow to your expertise

no wait, no I don't.

Pistol grip and collapsible/folding stock make a weapon more concealable

As mentioned above, there are fixed stock that are as short as a fully retracted collapsable stock. Still has to meet NFA regulations too.

A flash hider makes it harder to find a sniper.

Flash hiders are a bit of a misnomer, there is still a ton of flash and a hell of a lot of noise. Besides, there are many other means to find a sniper that are better than glassing the area hoping the sniper doesn't pop you.

http://www.mac-con.com/sniper/aircraft.html

http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/land-sads.htm

According to the last link, they seem to believe that sound, specifically from a rifle IS directional.

Detachable magazines facilitate drive-bys and other crime uses where a large output of bullets is desired.

So one guy with a 30 round magazine is more of a menace than three guys with 10 round mags? Assuming we aren't talking about full auto machine guns, 3 guys could dump 30 rounds faster than one guy.

None of these features has any relevance to any legal use of a firearm excepting the detachable magazine, which is convenient for target shooters.

Been to any highpower or DCM matches lately?

[Wcross]

59. I can tell you didn't spend any time in Uniform

The flash hider is designed to suppress the flash seen by the shooter. It still throws off a hell of a flash even if equipped. If it was designed to hide a sniper, why aren't military sniper rifles equipped with them?

Lets hear about the dewey decimal system, something you are qualified to talk about.

[slackmaster]

24. IMO if you meet the legal requirements to own a handgun, you should...

...be able to buy any kind of semiautomatic firearm you want.

[HereSince1628]

27. Well, opinions are unassailable, you own yours, but

would you feel different about, say, hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenade launchers, or stinger missles?

Its really a matter of perception of public safety. At some point along the spectrum, a majority of people become uneasy about the availability of such things. THAT is the point towards which laws and regulations push.

Presently I can see the utility of having hand grenades, RPG's, and stinger missles in combat, I can't accept, them whether carried concealled or in the open, in general circulation. Call me anti-firepower but that's my opinion. And I expect my position does violates the intent of some interpreters of the framers.

[slackmaster]

29. In a word, YES!

To answer your question, I do feel differently about explosive devices than I do about small firearms.

I think the present controls on destructive devices are appropriate and adequate. If I really want to set off an explosive charge or blow something up I can do so legally right now, so the extra hassle of buying an RPG or a hand grenade or whatever wouldn't be worth the trouble for me.

[library_max]

32. "Present controls on destructive devices are appropriate and adequate."

How do you mean? According to your very next sentence, those controls make no difference, so in what sense are they "appropriate and adequate"?

[slackmaster]

42. I get the impression you don't understand what I'm referring to

There's a difference between destructive devices and explosives.

Manufacturing a destructive device that can then be transported, stored, and deployed at a future time is highly regulated.

There is no federal law against creating an explosive out of non-explosive materials at the site where you intend to use it, and blowing it up immediately, provided that you don't run afoul of anyone's property rights, noise ordinances, state laws, etc. All of the federal laws concerning explosives per se concern transportation and storage. There's a big difference legally between mixing up an explosive substance and manufacturing an explosive device.

[library_max]

50. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Thanks.

I want to be sure we don't get dragged off on some irrelevant tangent here, so I'm taking this one step at a time.

Do I understand correctly that you believe that laws that restrict the manufacture and sale of destructive devices are appropriate?

[slackmaster]

78. Let me give you an emphatic YES!

Do I understand correctly that you believe that laws that restrict the manufacture and sale of destructive devices are appropriate?

:toast:

[library_max]

80. Okay.

So in spite of the fact that, presumably, there are people who want them, you believe that they should remain restricted. On what basis do you justify that?

[slackmaster]

81. Destructive devices are just too darn dangerous IMO

They explode and create a roughly spherical area of certain death and/or destruction.

Firearms are different. Their destructive energy is directed in a single line (or more technically a ray).

So in spite of the fact that, presumably, there are people who want them, you believe that they should remain restricted.

People who really want destructive devices can get them in most states.

Amended to add: People who really NEED destructive devices can get them too. I have neither the need nor the desire to own one.

[library_max]

83. But they are restricted, and that's okay by you.

Destructive devices are "too darn dangerous" in your opinion. Do you have any figures to back this up? How many destructive devices are used in crime per year? How many deaths were caused by manufactured destructive devices (as distinct from homemade, which, as you admitted, are not and cannot be controlled) last year, or in the last five years?

[slackmaster]

86. The OKC bombing was done with an unregistered destructive device

QED

Max, I think you and I agree in all seriousness that there needs to be a line in the sand to define what kinds of weapons or other dangerous objects are unregulated and what kinds need to be regulated in the public interest. The real difference between your position and mine is were we draw the line. I believe your "should be regulated" includes all firearms. I'm happy with where the line is drawn now - Fully automatic weapons, short-barrelled shotguns, etc. are regulated, and after September 13 most ordinary firearms will not be.

[library_max]

87. A manufactured and sold destructive device?

Because, as you said, it's not possible to restrict the homemade kind.

[slackmaster]

89. What difference does manufactured vs. homemade make?

Because, as you said, it's not possible to restrict the homemade kind.

I've never said any such thing. Homemade destructive devices are and should be restricted. Maybe you are confusing what I wrote about lawful use of explosive substances with manufacturing a destructive device.

[library_max]

90. Okay, my error.

So let's include the Murraugh Building. McVeigh killed a lot of people. Are we agreed in principle that devices that are used to kill a lot of people can reasonably be regulated and restricted? Even if some people want them and think they have a right to have them?

[slackmaster]

94. Pretty much in agreement here

Anyone who wants to buy or build a military explosive device should go through all the paperwork and get a background check and pay the required fees.

I'm content with machineguns being regulated in that manner as well, but not semiautomatic firearms.

Even if some people want them and think they have a right to have them?

Note that the National Firearms Act was implemented as a tax law and not a gun ban. In 1934 Congress did not want to risk a court challenge that people have a right to own machineguns under the Second Amendment. I've read some of the debates in the Congressional Record in our local law library. Too bad the CR online goes back only to 1994.

[library_max]

96. Okay, then what we have here is a line-drawing exercise.

You're okay with destructive devices being regulated and controlled. You're okay with machine guns being regulated and controlled. You're not okay with semiautomatic firearms being regulated and controlled. I can't really see any principle involved here except your personal preference - that you want a semiautomatic firearm for yourself, but don't want a machine gun or a destructive device.

[slackmaster]

110. Maybe you didn't read what I wrote in JibJab's thread about assault rifles

I most certainly would like to own one or more machineguns. To a gun collector, a transferrable machinegun is like a gold coin to a coin collector (except that anyone with enough money can buy a gold coin).

The only thing stopping me is California state law.

Is my principle becoming any clearer to you yet?

[library_max]

112. Nope. Please elaborate on this principle. /nt

[slackmaster]

113. It's where I draw the line

I think machineguns are dangerous enough that the NFA registry, background check, and transfer fee are justified; and that anyone who can meet the requirements should be able to buy one.

I do not think that semiautomatics are dangerous enough to justify any additional controls beyond the ones we already have in place (which are not being adequately enforced).

I think of a destructive device like a hand grenade as a 3-dimensional weapon. It creates a volume of destruction.

An automatic weapon that is traversed while firing continuously lays out a 2-dimensional field of destruction.

Semiautomatics are one-dimensional weapons.

I draw the line somewhere between one dimension and two.

[library_max]

119. But you will concede that semi-automatic can be converted into automatic.

There are kits widely advertised and sold for that exact purpose.

[FeebMaster]

121. Really?

Why don't you link us to a place selling those kits or to an advertisement for those kits? I mean, if it's widely advertised that shouldn't be a problem.

[MrBenchley]

124. Do you REALLY want to pretend nobody can use google, feeb?

[FeebMaster]

125. I'd like to pretend that a gun control proponent would

use google to back up one of their claims.

[MrBenchley]

127. Yeah, feeb....

we all know what you like to pretend...

[library_max]

126. Here's what I found in a brief Google search.

http://www.righthook.com/farifles.html

These are instruction books, not kits. The fifth one promises instructions to "convert your AR-7 into an advanced selective-fire weapon." And halfway down the page is "Full-Auto Conversion Of The Sks Rifle" - "for academic study only," of course!

http://www.biggerhammer.net/patents/

Here's a list of patents for various kinds of firearms conversion, including conversion to full-auto.

http://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt

This one may be a hoax. Is it?

http://www.ftfindustries.com/new_page_1.htm

Another page of instruction books for converting semi-automatic weapons to full-auto "with BATF approval" (nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more).

http://www.firingpin.com/fullauto3.htm

Yet another catalog of full auto conversion how-to guides. This site also sells the enchanting title, "A Felon's Guide to Legal Firearms Ownership." Nice to see whose side the gun sites are on.

So, no kits. Maybe they're illegal and only available at gun shows. But great thundering tons of how-to books, and that's only on the first two pages of a Google search. The people selling these books probably don't think it's too bloody difficult to convert semi-auto to full-auto.

[MrBenchley]

128. Remember...

the same gumps trying to pretend that these guns can't be converted are trying to pretend that guns can be easily whipped up from scratch...

[FeebMaster]

130. That the guns can be converted wasn't the claim.

The claim was "There are kits widely advertised and sold for that exact purpose."

[MrBenchley]

131. And the claim's been backed up, feeb....

in spades....

[FeebMaster]

132. Oh? Could you give me a link

to where it's been backed up. I must have missed it when it happened.

[MrBenchley]

137. Guess you missed a lot then, feeb....

as usual....

[library_max]

154. Okay, no widely advertised kits.

But semi-automatic weapons can easily be converted into full auto. That is, after all, the point.

[FeebMaster]

156. That's an entirely different claim.

Now back that one up.

[library_max]

159. For requested evidence, see post #126.

Re: "entirely different claim," this subthread began when you demanded support in response to post #119. Did you read post #119? Just in case, go back and read it again. You will see that the "entirely different claim" is right there also.

[FeebMaster]

160. I read 119,

the word easy didn't appear anywhere in it.

I will say it again: No one is claiming that semi-automatic weapons can't be modified to fire fully automatic. You are claiming it's easily done and showing some random books, mostly published before the civilian machine gun manufacturing ban when it was legal to do. I'm sure you're aware, being the expert of federal firearms law that you are, that the ATF considers any gun that is easily convertible to a machine gun to be a machine gun whether or not it is currently capable of firing full-auto. I'm sure you're also aware that after the ATF decided this, a number of guns, including AR-15s, were modified by their manufacturers to make it more difficult to convert them.


I like this from 119:
"Another page of instruction books for converting semi-automatic weapons to full-auto "with BATF approval" (nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more)."

Back when most of those books were published you could get approval to convert a semi-auto to full-auto, but I'm sure you knew that.

[library_max]

161. So you're trying to pretend

that the websites I linked have been unchanged since 1994, and those books are no longer purchasable through them. Ha ha. Good one.

[FeebMaster]

162. What does 1994 have to do with anything?

Why shouldn't the books be purchasable? Do you want to restrict the authors' freedom of speech? Just because you can buy a book that explains how to convert an early 80's AR-15 clone to full auto doesn't mean it's going to be useful to you in converting a 2004 AR-15 clone to full auto.

[FeebMaster]

129. Books and patents?

You said: "There are kits widely advertised and sold for that exact purpose."

[library_max]

134. RKBA logic - pick the nit, leave the main fact unanswered.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

136. Feeb's daily journey from Denial to Distraction

by way of Implausible Claim....

[FeebMaster]

147. You made a claim which you have failed to back up

You said: "There are kits widely advertised and sold for that exact purpose."

Simply link me to an advertisement to one of those kits.

[slackmaster]

138. An instruction book is not the same thing as a kit

I can find a plan to build a nuclear bomb on the Internet.

Is that the same as a collection of parts from which a bomb could be assembled?

:nuke:

[library_max]

145. Now tell me which necessary part of full auto conversion

is an illegal controlled substance. Because you need unobtainable parts to make a working nuclear bomb.

[slackmaster]

163. The receiver

Because you need unobtainable parts to make a working nuclear bomb.

Fissionable materials are controlled. Machinegun receivers are controlled. Both can be manufactured illegally.

[slackmaster]

135. Please provide proof of your claim

You might want to read this article before you waste any time looking for ads for machinegun conversion kits:

http://www.jobrelatedstuff.com/content/legal/dias.html

[library_max]

151. See post #126,

unless you want to commit to the same nitpick as Feeb. The original question was, is it really possible for the general public to convert semi-auto to full auto? I think post #126 provides ample support for the affirmative.

[library_max]

153. Okay.

But it's pretty clear from the article that they exist and are being sold to people. And "drop-in" doesn't sound too frickin' complicated to me. Also, the article says that the AR-15 can easily be converted to full auto without the kit, just that the result is neither safe nor reliable. So I guess it'd depend on how badly a criminal wanted full auto capability.

[slackmaster]

164. Did you actually read the whole article?

There's more to converting an AR-15 to fire full-auto than simply dropping in a drop-in autosear.

Also, the article says that the AR-15 can easily be converted to full auto without the kit, just that the result is neither safe nor reliable. So I guess it'd depend on how badly a criminal wanted full auto capability.

How often do you read news articles about AR-15 rifles that have been illegally converted to fire automatically and used in crimes?

I can recall only one instance in the daily GITN threads here, and that was someone working for the Mexican drug mobs.

[library_max]

139. Responding to a later post while avoiding the dogpile.

Whether or not semi-automatic weapons can be easily converted to automatic weapons (which seems to depend on what the definition of "is" is), we are in agreement that the gun control controversy is a matter of line drawing.

So I don't understand why it is so often expressed as a matter of law or sacred democratic principle - why it is expressed in the language of rights and freedoms. If the question is where do you draw the line - which weapons are too dangerous for the general public to own and which weapons aren't - then how can it be a matter of principle, rights, or freedom? Isn't it really just a matter of how dangerous is too dangerous?

I will cheerfully concede that pushing any gun controls beyond the AWB would be bad politics for Democrats at this time. The nation is too polarized, the stakes are too high, other priorities are too urgent. This is no time to try to talk the single-issue voters off the ledge. But that will change. The political climate is always changing. Can we agree that, in the long run, this is a matter for voters to decide - which weapons are too dangerous and which aren't?

[slackmaster]

142. Ultimately the voters decide who makes the laws and who interprets them

Therefore you are correct, ultimately the voters decide.

[library_max]

146. So why use the rhetoric of rights and freedoms?

Since all we're really talking about is the difference between what you want and what I want.

[MrBenchley]

148. Because otherwise the focus would be

on the unsavory forces pushing to put these guns back on the market....

[library_max]

158. Please, MrB, let slackmaster respond.

I think we were coming to a valuable understanding.

[slackmaster]

165. IMO all rights exist until they are restricted or curtailed by due process

The power of due process, like all other powers, is derived from the consent of the governed. We don't live in a vacuum. We all have to constrain our impulses and desires in order to have a society that works. We all agree that some restrictions on behavior are needed whenever a society has more than one member.

But we cannot go restricting each others' behavior capriciously. We can't have a free society if the set of allowed behaviors gets reduced to only those to which nobody objects. The fear of a subset of the population regarding what someone MIGHT do with a particular firearm is insufficient justification for banning that firearm; that would infringe unjustly on the rights of those who want to own one.

[library_max]

167. "The fear of . . . what someone MIGHT do . . ."

You are possibly forgetting the more than ten thousand murders per year committed with guns, and the hundreds of thousands of other crimes committed with guns. That's not a small thing. That's not "capricious."

Now you may disagree about the efficacy of gun control measures or the comparative advantages of restricting guns vs. not restricting them. But that's a matter of opinion, in which yours is no better than mine. It brings us back to the matter of the twinkie. Lots of people like them and want them. But if the FDA banned them, that'd be that. No constitutional crisis, no threat to the very foundations of liberty. There might be letters and petitions, and enough pressure might even be brought to bear to get the FDA to change its ruling. But either way, no constitutional crisis, no threat to the very foundations of liberty.

It's not a "freedom" issue. It's just a difference of opinion.

[MrBenchley]

168. You will also notice

slack's peculiar inference that there was something that was not "due process" in the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban...

[slackmaster]

169. All guns can be used for good or bad purposes

All guns are potential murder weapons.

The whole idea of trying to decide which are "good guns" and which are "bad guns" among modern, civilian, non-NFA firearms seems completely ridiculous to me.

It brings us back to the matter of the twinkie. Lots of people like them and want them. But if the FDA banned them, that'd be that. No constitutional crisis, no threat to the very foundations of liberty.

If the FDA banned Twinkies the Hostess company and other packaged food manufacturers would immediately design and start producing snack foods that fall just short of whatever technical definition of "Twinkie" was created in order to ban them.

Then the anti-junkfood lobby would be up in arms about the Corrupt Junkfood Industry(TM) exploiting "loopholes" in the "sensible" Twinkie ban. If the Twinkie ban has a 10-year sunset clause and it looks like Congress isn't motivated to renew, make permanent, or expand the ban, the Twinkie ban crowd gets absolutely livid and complains about how the junk food lobby is going to put dangerous foods back on the market, when in reality foods that don't differ from Twinkies in any meaningful way have been available all along. There may be even more kinds of junk cake-like snacks available, and the ban might even have spurred interest in the "forbidden" kind of food.

This is really an excellent parallel for the whole "assault weapons" issue. It comes down to creating a name for something then banning it by name: We hereby create a category of things and call it X, and declare X to be bad. Then someone makes an X-1, and the people who banned X get upset. Alfred Korzybski laughs from his grave.

[MrBenchley]

170. "Alfred Korzybski laughs from his grave."

and the sound is muffled by the earth....

"Martin Gardner, one noted for his debunking of various pseudosciences and cults, studied briefly under Korzybski in Chicago in the 1940's. In one of his books, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, he devotes a chapter to General Semantics. Here's Gardner's opinion of Korzybski's book:
"...Science and Sanity, the 800-page Bible of general semantics ... is a poorly organized, verbose, philosophically naive, repetitious mish-mash of sound ideas borrowed from abler scientists and philosophers, mixed with neologisms, confused ideas, unconscious metaphysics, and highly dubious speculations about neurology and psychiatric therapy."
Fad and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1952, revised 1957)"

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6760/

"In the earliest Dianetics publications Hubbard gives some credit to Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics cult. For a while in 1950, Hubbard lectured on General Dianetics, and one of his closest co-workers A. E. van Vogt wrote an influential novel based on General Semantics (van Vogt 1945). The General Semantics movement still exists, more than thirty years after the death of its founder, claiming to be a scholarly discipline complete with its own scientific journal. However, Korzybski's main writings combine moralism with much pseudo-scientific quackery (Korzybski 1948, 1950), and the cult for a time boasted the ability to cure alcoholism, homosexuality, kleptomania, stuttering, impotence and other psychological problems (Gardner 1957). "

http://mysite.verizon.net/william.bainbridge/dl/cultgen.htm

[library_max]

171. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

If your one and only objection to the AWB is that it isn't specific enough to be effective, we don't have much to argue about.

[slackmaster]

172. That's not my objection

Sorry if I haven't made this clear previously:

I object to the AWB because IMO the class of things defined as "assault weapons" (and a lot of things that fall just outside of that definition) do not represent an unreasonable threat to public safety.

I think the line was drawn correctly in the National Firearms Act of 1934: Any firearm that discharges more than one round of ammunition per trigger pull deserves special treatment, and we'll define any gun that does that as a "machinegun". Any rifle shorter than (whatever the length specification) or shotgun with a barrel under 16 inches also deserves the same treatment as machineguns.

I'd like to live in a world where there are no violent people and anyone can be trusted with any kind of weapon, but alas it just ain't so. The NFA was a compromise between those who would ban guns and those who value the right to have them. I see no compelling reason to lower the bar.

[library_max]

173. The point is that it's a matter of preference, not principle.

And a matter of opinion about what works and what doesn't work. We are agreed in principle that society is justified in controlling access to weapons if those weapons are dangerous to society beyond the positive value of permitting them. We are agreed that society, and the polity that represents it, has that right.

So we aren't arguing any matter of legal, moral, or philosophical principle. We are arguing only about where exactly to draw the line.

[slackmaster]

175. My "preference" is based on experience and specialized knowledge

Most people don't seem to know diddly about firearms. That's why I put little value in things like poll results that say however many people this week want the AWB to be extended.

Our system of law and justice has devices built in to protect the rights of minority groups from "tyranny of the majority".

We are agreed in principle that society is justified in controlling access to weapons if those weapons are dangerous to society beyond the positive value of permitting them. We are agreed that society, and the polity that represents it, has that right.

Yes, but the decision-making process has to be more than a simple "majority rules" vote. Interests of people with minority points of view deserve a fair hearing.

So we aren't arguing any matter of legal, moral, or philosophical principle. We are arguing only about where exactly to draw the line.

I think that's a reasonable assessment of the situation.

[MrBenchley]

178. This argument by the trigger-happy has always cracked me up....

"Most people don't seem to know diddly about firearms. That's why I put little value in things like poll results that say however many people this week want the AWB to be extended."
You don't have to know dick about firearms to know that the sumbitches trying to get their hands on assault weapons present a public menace...

Anymore than you have to be an expert in gun porn to know that a cause that Tom DeLay AND John AshKKKroft AND Wayne LaPierre AND Larry Pratt AND Ann Coulter AND Ted Nugent AND the Aryan Nation all support is a disgraceful piece of shit.

[library_max]

179. First of all,

gun owners aren't a "minority group" any more than, say, smokers are. Nobody is out to get them because of who they are. The question is, is gun ownership harmful to society?

And nobody is advocating that people with minority points of view shouldn't get a fair hearing. You can hardly look at the internet nowadays and pretend that your side isn't getting a fair hearing. The truth is that your side is doing all it can to stifle and crush any opposing viewpoints. Not your fault personally, but perhaps we might lighten up on the persecution complex a little.

And as far as your experience and specialized knowledge is concerned, everyone has experience and everyone has specialized knowledge. Mine differ from yours. It would be presumptuous and self-righteous to assume that your experience and knowledge (or mine) should be the only kind that matters, or the kind that should decide the issue.

In my opinion, it is overweening arrogance to assert that people who cannot name all the parts on a gun off the top of their heads (for example) have no right to an opinion on gun control. The laws themselves should be written with knowledge of guns applied, but that's an entirely separate question. Health care regulations should be written with health care knowledge, but that doesn't mean that you have to be a doctor or a nurse to have a right to an opinion about health care.

[slackmaster]

180. Other than one little exaggeration...

In my opinion, it is overweening arrogance to assert that people who cannot name all the parts on a gun off the top of their heads (for example) have no right to an opinion on gun control.

I respect your point of view.

[slackmaster]

176. I'm perfectly happy with the present AWB

Especially the part that says it's going to expire next month.

[library_max]

174. By the way, side note on Twinkies.

Regulation is much more responsive than legislation. The FDA can turn on a dime, at least compared to Congress. If Hostess developed, marketed, and produced a near-Twinkie, the FDA could ban that too. And so on. It would become a question of how many millions Hostess, or its parent company, wanted to piss away on a childish act of defiance.

That approach might conceivably be adopted with firearms, giving the ATF comparable authority to the FDA. But that's not what we were talking about, so as I said this is just a side note.

[FeebMaster]

177. If you'd read the current federal firearms laws

you'd know how much authority the ATF has over firearms.

[slackmaster]

191. "Childish act of defiance?"

Or a legitimate effort by a corporation to stay in business and uphold the interests of its customers, investors, and employees. Regulatory actions can have negative consequences as well as positive ones. Hostess is in the business of selling packaged sugary snack foods for which there is a demand.

Remember Fudd's First Law of Opposition: "If you push something hard enough it will fall over." The FDA can regulate but it can only go so far before a backlash erupts among people who want to eat packaged sugary snack foods.

That approach might conceivably be adopted with firearms, giving the ATF comparable authority to the FDA.

The BATFE already has comparable authority. Many of the restrictions on gun design, importation, manufacturing, and commerce are regulatory rather than statutory.

See http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm

[HereSince1628]

39. But, if you REALLY want to fire an assault weapon you can too.

Members of this board have discussed such outings a number of times.
So there are ways of experiencing the challenge of marksmanship with such a weapon.

Face it they are _not_ banned from production and use, their production, private ownership and operation are regulated.

I admire the undying commitment of advocates of semiautomatic assault weapons, I honor their attempts to employ argument to try to change public perception. Once that perception is changed so will be the rules.

The fundamental argument that can be used against say large caliber artillery rockets is the one that is used to ban private ownership of assault weapons--the public consents to the notion that these firearms represent an unacceptable risk. The original poster asked why he couldn't own one and, fundamentally, that is the reason.

Why doesn't some advocate of assault weapons review the history of regulation of assault weapons, say of something like the Thompson submachine gun used by gangsters following WWI. Why is banning them OK and banning the potentially convertible to fully automatic assault weapon not OK? I suspect it will fall upon the phrases "public perception," and "public willingness."

[slackmaster]

44. The line has to be drawn somewhere

I'm perfectly happy with the present controls on artillery shells, RPGs, etc.

Why is banning them OK and banning the potentially convertible to fully automatic assault weapon not OK?

Any block of metal is potentially convertible to an automatic weapon. In fact it would be a hell of a lot easier to make an open-bolt Sten from scrap metal than to convert a semiautomatic Thompson to selective-fire. Civilian semiautomatic variants of military arms like the Kalashnikov rifle are intentionally made to be difficult to convert.

The act of doing a full-auto conversion is highly regulated, and unless someone can show me some hard evidence that people are actually doing illegal conversions to the point where it's a major public safety issue I'm not impressed by anyone's assertion that the possibility that it MIGHT happen is a real problem.

[FeebMaster]

48. That's not entirely correct.

Face it they are _not_ banned from production and use, their production, private ownership and operation are regulated.

They are banned from civilian production but not use. Their ownership and operation aren't regulated any more than most other guns.

[HereSince1628]

56. Distinctions with no difference

arguing for the sake of it I suppose but...

I wrote:

Face it they are _not_ banned from production and use, their production, private ownership and operation are regulated.

You wrote:

They are banned from civilian production but not use. Their ownership and operation aren't regulated any more than most other guns


So...I don't think you can have this one both ways...

1) Allowing arms companies to produce them means there _isn't_ a ban but rather regulation that makes civilian production of same unlawful. The fact that the regulation is an absolute prohibition on one source...civilian production still leaves their production legal, thus not completely banned.

(BTW I am not sure production of these things is entirely banned...I am guessing that replica parts and replacement pieces can be made and from such parts "whole weapon" technology exists, and may even be in play, but folks in northern Idaho would know more about that than I do. The tangent that takes my thought is that I know a civil war re-enacter who has a functional little howitzer or mortar with about a 2 inch bore that was produced in an Indiana foundary in the 1970's to mil specs of the civil war. Bit I'll accept on your advice that civilian production of assault weapons is prohibited)

2) As the NRA is ever so good at reminding us, there are literally more laws, ordinances and regulations on gun ownersip and use than there are legal jurisdictions in the US. Consequently if assault weapons are regulated like other civilian owned firearms, then they are regulated in perhaps every jurisdiction in the country.

That would make them regulated even to the point that many complain about over regulation.

[FeebMaster]

61. I don't have it both ways.

Arms companies can only produce Assault Weapons to sell to government agencies. They can't sell assault weapons manufactured after the ban was put into place to civilians.

"(BTW I am not sure production of these things is entirely banned...I am guessing that replica parts and replacement pieces can be made and from such parts "whole weapon" technology exists, and may even be in play, but folks in northern Idaho would know more about that than I do. The tangent that takes my thought is that I know a civil war re-enacter who has a functional little howitzer or mortar with about a 2 inch bore that was produced in an Indiana foundary in the 1970's to mil specs of the civil war. Bit I'll accept on your advice that civilian production of assault weapons is prohibited)"

I have no idea what any of this has to do with the Assault Weapons Ban. What do folks in northern Idaho have to do with anything? A muzzle loading cannon with a bore of 2" might not even be regulated as a destructive device, in any case it has nothing to do with the AWB.


"2) As the NRA is ever so good at reminding us, there are literally more laws, ordinances and regulations on gun ownersip and use than there are legal jurisdictions in the US. Consequently if assault weapons are regulated like other civilian owned firearms, then they are regulated in perhaps every jurisdiction in the country.

That would make them regulated even to the point that many complain about over regulation."

Certainly there are various laws at the state level that further regulate firearms in one way or another, but at the federal level there are only a handful of laws regulating firearms. As far as assault weapons go, most states don't regulate them any more heavily than most other firearms.

[MrSandman]

74. VPC and AW ban are not the same ...

Definition of an assault weapon.

"United States of Assault Weapons
Gunmakers evading the Federal Assault Weapons Ban"


http://www.vpc.org/studies/USofAW.htm

It is a PDF.

[turnkey]

82. And we're accused of Right Wing spin!!

duh!!!