Assault weapon ban?

pugga, ...the problem is this argument of demonstrating "need" is counter-constitutional.... there is a delicate balance of liberty vs. limitation/denial. do we consider one's right to public protest in lieu of some demonstrated "need"?... do we consider one's right to post a story about local corruption on a news blog, only after demonstrated "need", ...so you see, when the gov't get's to decide "need", ...you'll find that they gov't tends to steamroll the very things that threaten to contain it... case in point: china!

...whether or not i "need" an AR, or whatever rifle, is irrelevant, ...if i'm a law-abiding citizen, it's my right, ...and i don't have to demonstrate any "need" for hunting or any other such thing, ..the 2A isn't about hunting, ..it is what threatens to provide a "check" on the power/obtrusiveness of gov't"... it's pretty much case-closed on principle

 

It would require milling out the shelf in the rear of the receiver in order to make room for the sear and drilling a third hole for the auto sear. At that point if the individual is capable of that type of machine work for nefarious purposes, small arms are your least concern.

You can "simulate" fully automatic fire by "bump firing" any semi auto rifle. It's not very controllable, although there are stocks that help with that. Even with a happy switch, you won't be effectively using automatic fire without some serious trigger time and training. Even the top tier SF guys run their rifles on semi.

I'd rather face a guy who's hosing out of control on an assault rifle (a true assault rifle is by definition select fire) than have a guy with a semi-auto sending out aimed, controlled pairs.

 

My thoughts on the subject:

If you think that a person who is willing to mass murder innocent children, an act that is the ultimate violation of law and morality, will comply with gun control legislation, you're foolish.

They're called criminals for a reason - they break the law. Carrying an "illegal high capacity magazine" is the least of a logical criminal's worries as he sets about to commit murder and does not even register on the radar of an illogical schizophrenic.

Lock up the mentally disturbed, not the weapon. There will always be a suitable weapon available. Anyone with a lick of common sense, access to the internet, and home depot can build a sophisticated improvised explosive device. I sit halfway around the world in Afghanistan typing this, where people with zero education, who cannot read or write, produce sophisticated IEDs. If they can do it, a schizophrenic can do it.

The problem lies with an immature society who would rather watch American Idol than raise their children. Americans can tell you who the top athlete or pop star is, but they can't point out Afghanistan on a map (I'm beginning to doubt some Americans could even point to America on a map). They can rattle off every specification of the latest iPad but cannot recognize the difference between basic groups of weapons (this includes politicians who attempting to pass legislation based on misunderstandings and myths).

Like them or not, firearms are a part of this world and they're not going anywhere. You either recognize that and accept responsibility for your own personal protection or you bury your head in the sand and pretend it could never happen to you.

Lastly, the mall shooting in Oregon was ended up a young man carrying a concealed weapon who never even fired a shot. He drew his weapon, and the murdered took his own life. You connect the dots and figure out whether we should have weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If guns are bad, how come:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]All high politicians – including Dear Leader and Gauleiter Bloomberg – are surrounded by heavily armed guards?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is never a mass shooting at a police station?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is virtually no “gun crime” in Switzerland, even though the Swiss are armed to the teeth, with full-auto military combat rifles in the hands of nearly every adult male between the ages of 18 and 45?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Guns save so many lives each year – including most recently the lives of numerous potential victims of a mass shooting in Oregon at the Clackamas Town Center Mall, where concealed carry permit holder Nick Meli confronted armed killer Jacob Tyler Roberts – who had already shot two people dead … and prevented him from shooting more people dead?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Rural areas tend to have high concentrations of guns relative to urban areas – yet “gun crime” is inexorably higher in urban areas while it is almost nonexistent in the rural areas?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Concealed carry permit holders are less likely to be involved in an unjustified (non-defensive) shooting than a cop?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Obama administration “walked” 2,000 high-powered rifles to Mexican drug cartels?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Some advocates of “sensible” gun control argue that no one needs – take your pick – a semi-automatic pistol or rifle (which means virtually all pistols and rifles that aren’t single-shot Derringers and bolt-action rifles) or a “high capacity” magazine or a weapon over a certain caliber or which has a certain “threatening” (to some) appearance – even if its function is identical to a rifle with a “less menacing” appearance.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Well, who really needs more than $50,000 a year to live on? Or more than an 800 sq. foot dwelling? Does anyone need more car than is sufficient to get from A to B at the posted speed limit? Who really needs anything beyond the bare minimum necessary to maintain one’s physical existence?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Who needs to live to be older than 80? Who needs to have more than one kid?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Do you really need a 40 ounce drink? Or more than one drink of soda per day?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]How many calories per day does a person need?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Oh, but guns are different![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not really. And the principle behind the argument is identical.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If need is to become the justification for allowing us to do (or posses) things, then we are already enslaved in our minds – and soon will be enslaved physically and utterly.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]From each according to his abilities… to each according to his needs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This famous statement is left hanging. The need is never qualified.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Need – according to whom?[/FONT]

http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e279.html

 

Sorry, had to fix it...

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/am_i_a_threat.html

 

This a file and 30 min of your time and full auto..

 

The whole "sporting" angle is complete and utter BS and you are an IDIOT if you fall for this line of thinking. It has been heavily promoted and exploited as a "reasonable" course of action by the enemy, so much that it has people falling for it because they want to be PC or appear "reasonable. Screw that.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.

It was written to expressly empower citizens to be ARMED against tyrannical government.

And blaming the CT shooting on guns is moronic. It has more to do with mental illness than anything but where is the government agenda to lock up all the psychos???

 

Eh, I knew it was one of those "O" states.

 

I do understand your point 100% You're never going to prevent all criminals from getting weapons, high capacity mags, etc. Same way armed personnel whether it be LEO's or teachers wouldn't keep someone who is going to kill themselves anyway from trying something like this. But just to play devils advocate, wouldn't having some of these things not legally available curtail some of these folks from acting out on their crazed thoughts? You're talking a 20 year old with no criminal record vs perhaps some felon getting weapons via illegal methods. Would some kid like this have gone through illegal means to gain access to certain weapons or magazines? We don't know. I have to think that certain things not being legal would prevent at least some from taking something legally owned from their residence vs. trying to find something on the "black market."

I don't know. I'm really not sure where I stand on the whole "assault weapon" ban or no ban to be honest. While I will say no one "needs" said weapon used, I do honestly believe he would have still done serious (maybe not quite as many fatalities, but still staggering numbers) had he only had the two handguns he also had with him.

 

a few observations to establish an envelope of context:

1) the 2A isn't about hunting, ...never was... any arguments about "limiting" a type of semi-auto gun and/or magazine/feed is 100% irrelevant... not "needed" for hunting, ..guess what i don't care, hunting isn't a lithmus test for the 2A, period, case closed..

2) the schools we have are extremely soft targets... no real defenses whatsoever...

3) we have "societal issues", ...and that is no one of our faults... but it is fact. there are very evil and deranged people out there (mental nut cases, terrorists, etc.) - they "exist", and they are "committed" to carrying out murder/mayhem, ...that is fact...

4) combine 2 and 3, and there you have it... that's your recipe for attack... the folks in (3) use strategy in ensuring the death/destruction occurs, ...go for the soft spots...

5) "gun control" is people control... firearms are old technology, invented 100s of years ago, ...once the cat's out of the bag, it's out... someone will always have them or will be able to manufacture them... same w/ nuclear weapons, ...cat's out of the bag, ...so sorry... legal civilian firearm ownership helps equalize the playing field, enabling honest folks to defend themselves from evil (be it from the gov't or the crook)...

 

So you want to punish all the good people who have done NOTHING by limiting their liberty because somebody MIGHT do something bad?

 

Everyone needs to stop talking about how to make class III weapons! The ATF will be down your throats.

 

Just got done reading all the posts, and can't believe no one really hit on this.

AR15 Semi auto-assault weapon!
Remington 7400-hunting gun!
Remington nylon 66- .22-plinking!
These are ALL semi-autos, the rate of fire is the same, and Remington, winchester, Ruger, Marlin, Browning, all make them.
An assault rifle ban will do NOTHING, unless they ban every weapon that's capable of firing a round with each pull of the trigger. (SEMI AUTO)
And I'm sure Hi capacity clips could be fabricated for any of them.

OK! NOW THEY'RE ALL GONE.
Pump or semi shotgun W/buckshot, or pump rifle (lg.cal. or .22)
THEY ARE GONE ALSO!
Several BLACK POWDER .44 cal "6 shooters"!
How far ????? Everytime something like this happens, and a weapon is involved, they are going to try to ban another type of weapon!

Also can't believe how many people don't understand the difference between full auto and semi auto.

 

Cus a very few (in DC) think they can..

 

Agreed.

And lets not forget the MEDIA who gives them their fame.

Streakers used to be a big problem at football games. Then they stopped filming them or giving them ANY mention. No fun anymore.

Maybe the media should STOP covering these issues the way they do, shamelessly pumping it up going on and on for rating$, and TAKE AWAY these dirtbags dreams of going out in some sick blaze of "glory" for attention?

 

Like I said in other post if you've bothered to read the whole thread, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't or should ban something. Just playing devils advocate since we're clearly divided as a country in wanting to have a discussion and wanting to not have nothing gun related in this discussion because if someone really wanted to they would take a hammer and mass skull crush people.

Also, if theoretically another assault weapon ban were to be reinstated how exactly does this limit your liberty exactly? It limits your WANTS, yes. I view it the same way as having certain vehicles not street legal in the US. We all like to drive and don't want that taken away. There are certain vehicles that would really serve no harm, yet are not street legal. No one NEEDS them. But some auto enthusiast WANT them. These vehicles really wouldn't hurt anyone if we could actually drive them. Same thing here. We're really not talking anything really be taken away. It's just some people WANT certain weapons whether it be for sporting, collection, etc. Which is fine, I get that. But lets not try to hide this behind an amendment or liberties issue.

 

Went into a local gun shop tonight just to see....It looked like the apocalypse was coming, just bare shelves and only shotguns and bolt action rifles remaining.

I really have mixed opinions on the issue. YOu can say well you dont need an AR and an AR kills, well so do cars and speeding so why would you need a Ferrari?

Banning the weapons, will it really make anyone safer? Will it eliminate crime? No, maybe cut down on mass killings but there will and always be gun violence.

For you Canucks...Yeah you have low gun crime up north, but if you allowed AR's do you think it would cause an escalation in gun violence? More and more I think it's a society issue. The more I travel the more I realize how unsafe our country really is. Everyone here thinks they are a badass and can take on the world.

As far as mental health and raising awaraness and making access to mental health treatment more accessable, well thats a whole other bag or worms. What if they cant afford health care? Now your into the natl HC issue. But the guy in Aurora was seeing a mental health specialists and guess what, they didnt do a damm thing to help anyone and nobody will ever know what they documented.

The country is walking down a very interesting path with a very cloudy ending.

 

The reality is these things (high capacity magazines) exist and will always exist. You will not purge them from society (see failure of War on Drugs).

And when it comes down to it - it doesn't matter if they're ten round magazines or fifteen round magazines. If you're intent on doing harm and you're selecting a "gun free zone" as your target, you're going to cause mass causalities.

The only people who will be left with these items will be criminals.

 

...driving (on public roadways) is not a constiutional right, ....firearms clearly are (amendment #2 us constitution, as well as encoded in most all state constitutions, oftentimes w/ even more specificity )

now, ...if i have a "right" to possess the means to provide for my personal self defense, including a tyrannical gov't (...no, that's not a dinosaur ), what right does that gov't have to "decide" what i "can" and "cannot" have?.. guess what, ...you leave it up to them, they'll stack the deck against you.... happens everywhere else... are you a citizen, or are you a subject?...