Does anyone here either support or dislike the ban on assault weapons?
Personally, I think that we should legalize anything under a nuclear bomb for the purposes of "self-defense."

Actually, I think that an assault-weapons ban isn't too smart because the criminals will still have those full-auto AKs and M4s, while the victims have to use semi-auto rifles. Yet, I agree that you don't need an assault rifle to get rid of the gophers or go hunting (unless you love ground meats).

::sniff - sniff::

Smells like Troll Bait to me.....

VB

The object of most control systems is to keep those, not normally on the edge, from making a poor choice when an uncommon situation, in said person's life, makes the use of said weapons, an option to be considered. Those who are already beyond that, due to demographical environment or long-term environmental induced disorders, cannot be controlled, other than, being placed in a controlled institutional environment.

I don't care for the ban myself, mostly because I like heavy ordinance. I can see the point of it, but it's not too effective now, is it?

Also, law abiding citizens can still get banned weapons, provided they have a Class 3 liscence.

I own several guns, and believe strongly in the right to own firearms.

Having said that I see no reason why anyone outside the Military needs to own a Fully Automatic weapon. Having Shot Full Auto in the military I can also tell you its a huge waste of ammo, the 1st/2nd and maybe 3rd round may hit your target but the rest end up in the air over the target. Smaller guns like the 9MM's are a little easier to keep more rounds on target tho.

I don't like weapons at all....at least not real ones...I thought this post was about banned weapons in MW4 LOL.....

Daqar

I'm not sure which ban you're referring to, but in California there's been a ban on sale of assualt weapons for the last 3 or so years, and I'd definately call it a good thing.

You can never get all guns out of a population, and it might not even be good to try, but at the moment assault weapons are virtually never used in crimes. As for self-defense, sticking to handguns and rifles is not that much of a penalty, and I'm having troubles thinking of a scenario in which it would even be safe to use something like an AK, at least in the city.
9mm = self-defense, assault weps = turning a whole block into a live-fire zone.

I honestly can't think of any reason why a private person should own an assault weapon

And I would be really interested to know how somebody wants to protect himself with an assault rifle...besides, if someone points a gun at your face, it does not really matter whether you have a knife or an AT-rocket

Nothing wrong with it, as long as you don't shoot anyone.

All weapons exepct basic hunting rifles and shot guns should be banned. The entier "for self protection" or "they have them so should we" thing is just a bunch of ************. Fact is your more likely to kill a family member by accident then kill and intruder, and this has been proven. And the chances that a intruder armed with AK 47 to show up at your house it like smaller then 0%. This is why we have police, civillians shouldn't have guns. And with thinking like that i wonder why there so many gun crimes in the US?

I don't see the need for automatic weapons. Banning them makes them hard to obtain, which keeps the death count lower when loonies pop out of the woodwork. Could you imagine Columbine High if those two nuts had AK-47s?

All other weapons should be available. In limiting restrictions, the potential for black markets, which enrich criminals and encourage crime, is limited. Look at our bans on alcohol in the past and drugs today. We created billionaire, nay trillionaire, criminals while fighting losing battles against their syndicates.

You create a state that is virtually impossible to invade. As it stands, rural America is a irregular mobile infantry force, millions strong. The average country boy or girl knows how to hunt and therefore would be a very tricky sniper. Didn't you guys watch Red Dawn?

Finally, you encourage responsibility from the government. If the people are well armed, that irregular mobile infantry force can turn on its would-be masters. If our government stopped serving our interests to the extreme, we would have the power to change it. Arming the citizenry is the act of a government that does not fear revolution.

my neighbor owns a assault weapon and it's sweet.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous
The chance that anybody would attack America is less than neglectible and the chance that an attacker succeeds so far that an "irregular mobile infantry force" would be needed is even lower. Also, you should consider that by participating in this "force" you would make yourself an illegal combatant, so legally, you would be not a soldier, but a killer (and would be treated according to this when caught).
And if a government wants to supress its people, it can do this regardless of how many weapons the people have....you just need an organised army, terror tactics and eventually a bit of cyanide

California's laws on gun control are moronic. Let's all ban guns that "look dangerous". The term "assault weapon" is terribly misused by all the mass media, etc. Not to mention the fact that they misuse almost ALL the various gun terms.

Kim Du Toit puts forth the reasons why current gun control in the US is rediculous, far more eloquently than I can, because, unfortunately I tend to get what he calls "RCOBs," (red curtain of blood). http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php

Let's not forget, banning assault weapons will mean that only the criminals have them.

Assault weapon is very poorly defined...having more to do with overall appearance than capability. Many common hunting guns used in the US become assault weapon with minor changes like a larger magazine or a collapsable stock. I'm glad some here at least specified automatic weapon.

I'll be honest though I'm horified that so many trust the government and think it's responsive enough to protect you in your home. I live on a military base and honestly doubt the MPs could react in less than 10 minutes...more than enough time to kill my entire family without even having to resort to a so called "assault" weapon. The individual is responsible first and foremost to protect themselves and honestly it's completely idiotic to even suggest thier capability to do so be taken away.

I won't even get started on the other obvious purpose for weapons...the ultimate safety valve for a government which no longer supports the constitution.

To sum it up. I do not support "assault weapon" bans....or restriction, most regulation, or registration of any kind for hand held weapons.



Elwha Fox

Fox... you took the words right out of my mouth.
"assault weapon" isn't defined, in the laws banning them or otherwise. Quite simply it was a word someone attached to any gun that looked a certain way, having nothing to do with the way they worked. As I've said before... if you want to fear something fear a .22 cal derringer... the odds of getting shot with one are WAY higher.

Tyrfing: we have already been attacked... its kind of hard to miss the change in the skyline in NY, nevermind the kind of vitriolic hatred spewed by terrorists (that we know of...) who are (background wise) coming from exactly the same situation that those who have already violated us. And belive it or not 'A well armed militia literally means every able bodied man from 17 to I think 40 in america.
For that matter if it ever DID get to the point that an army needed repelling from our ground (and our army was overwhelmed) do you really think that enemy soldiers in the field will treat irregulars any different than other soldiers? I think not, considering the feelings involved. As for the effectiveness of that kind of a force... read your history... the german army went to GREAT extents to remove exactly that kind of opposition when they crossed thru belgium into france... If there is one thing an army cannot take its a death by a thousand pin-pricks.
As for the supression of people by government you will note that the very first thing that goes ... is the right to keep and bear arms. As Ghandi said ... one of the blackest things britan ever did was to disarm the indians. No government would waste its time doing something that enraging and dangerous unles they thought it was necessary (And anyone that thinks our vounteer army will fire on its own citizens is smoking some potent dope, no WAY would they start supressing the citizenry because they ARE the citizenry!).

Here is an interesting scenario.

By some twist of fate the USA elects a president that turns the country into a police state and becomes a dictator. Now wouldn't it be nice to have some weapons that were at least on par with those being used by the military so that a successful revolution could occur to overthrow this dictator.

That is the whole reason for the second ammendment even existing. Our forefathers went through the trouble of a revolution to create this country for the people I think they would rather have its fate decided by the people instead of a dictator.

As long as government continues to grow this is where we will eventually go. Remember this though, government can only grow if we allow it to because we are the government and with out us there is no government. It is by our own choices to elect people to these positions and vote in laws that will take away our own freedoms.

Wrap your head around that one.

This scenario get's way more mileage than it should. Let's say some power-hungry politician introduces an amendment that would put politicians in place for longer amounts of time. How many other politicians would vote for that? We need the states to ratify it, after 2/3 of the Senate and the House passing it.

Say, by some freak coincidence, it goes through. There's no way it could become effective immediately, it would screw over the entire system. So, come next elections, the power-hungry politicos are whisked out of the government by challengers against the amendment who will obviously have the people's support.

OK, so another freak coincidence occurs and they're not voted out. You've got to realize, our military is made up of us. There are people in those tanks. Are those soldiers going to actually support the politicians? Not unless they get huge amounts of pay. And there's no way that they could come up with the funding for that.

And among all else, Presidents can do nothing alone. That's why we have courts and congress.

Keep in mind though, the an assault rifle is just that...an assault fire. You really don't need anything that powerful. Assault rifles are used for extreme force, only. Anything else is over kill. I mean you don't need an AR to take down a dear, or an entry shotgun to take out a quial. Much less a robber with a knife...

Actually you often need something far more powerful than what often are defined as assault rifles to take down deer, not to mention other large game animals. I was raised in a rural areas and just about everyone I know especially among the men hunted with 30-06, 30-30s, 7mm etc.

If you dig around in banned assault weapons 1994? many are 0.223...not good for hunting anything much larger than woodchucks and pronghorn.

But again that's much of the confusion...what is an assault weapon? Without clear definition this argument doesn't go far. It's also the specific reason why the law had to reference specific weapons by model (evidence of bad law).

Being somewhat familiar with rifles I'd off the cuff suggest anything fully auto with more than 20 rounds and bigger than 7.62mm. Most banned assault weapons on the list dont' meet that definition...but they sure "look" mean.

---
x2f01
Study up on the 20s-30s...we were periously close to our government failing us.
If not for the strong leadership of FDR the US might have become a communist nation.


Fox

I know that if I live in an area where I felt in danger, I wouldn't feel to safe unless I had something as dangerous as an AK laying around. I guess I'm just paranoid.

yea but you never no you might live in a tralier park where the cops want come and all the rednecks get in a gun fight you need some serious firepower

Tyrfing...

a local militia can NOT use assault weapons! the right to bear arms does NOT involve military surplus! it means a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun. who needs to strip off 30 rounds in less than a second?
one bullet is enough!

and has any one seen the BANK OF AMERICA shootout? the one in Calif i belive...

2 robbers with AK's and Bulletproof vests robbed the bank and THE POLICE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING!

they had to get some heavier firepower from a gunstore nearby.
one shot him self and the other was shot by police i think...

bullets ripped thru police cruisers! cmon do we REALLY need more of these?

Don't see your point. I've seen the film.

First off it's California. If it had happened in Austin Texas the locals might well have taken care of the problem before the police had even shown up...of course assuming the criminals were even stupid enough to try to do a crime where most folks are armed.

The vest is what made the cops unable to stop them...not the guns the robbers had. The incident doesn't support your argument.

Laws that prevent the average adults from protecting themself usually means criminals can operate without fear of injury to do thier dirty business. Crime in many rural areas in America is almost none existent due to this one fact. On the other hand look at our cities with the tightest gun laws.

Anyhow.



Fox

Um ok... I guess noone can read anymore so I'm gonna pose a question for everyone: Define, EXPLICITLY, what an assault rifle is. I'll tell you right now the wording in the current ban has NOTHING to do with the operation or capabilitys of the said weapons.

Col D. : S.W.A.T handles that kind of criminal normally and the crooks are NOT better armed than our swat guys.

My 2c: dead is dead, wether it was from a .22 primer charge only (the choice of assasins, massive blast damage at point blank range to the temple, quiet to boot)
or a 16 inch shell from the New Jersy. You draw the line at what the citizenry can own at what is classed a weapon capale of massive destruction. Yeap, wmds, defined in law as any rifle over .50 cal or any full auto weapon there-of (off the top of my head). Those that do own full auto weapons are subject to such tight restrictions that if they breathe wrong they find themselfs in the prision shower with about 20 desperate inmates.

I used rural America as my example because it stands as a good example of a country where the populace is armed. I agree that invasion is not likely.

Many Vietnamese citizens were armed. Much of their army was irregular infantry, probably operating on loose orders, if any at all.

The Arab Revolt, made famous by T.E. Lawrence is another good example. They crippled the Turks, who had numerical and technological superiority. If captured, an Arab was always tortured until dead.

Northern Ireland was another battlefield full of "illegal combatants." The British were forced to negotiate.

Maybe my example is far-fetched, but other examples abound: The partisan, the rebel, by whatever name you use, is a force to be reckoned with, and can win wars.

I will note that my economic theory is not debated. Is that rediculous as well?

Excuse me. A .50 Caliber is not an assault weapon. In fact, anyone who owns an automatic .50 caliber weapon, also known as a MACHINE GUN, would have a Browning Ma Duce M2 Machine Gun.

Most .50 BMG weapons in civilian hands are semi auto and bolt action, and impractical to use in criminal and terrorist situations. Weight, recoil, and ease of visibility prevent their use in these circumstances.



AHEM. WRONG. SWAT was designed to take on ever-increasing sophistication in criminal weaponry and tactics.

I just want to say that pot doesn't do much to alter your state of mind. It puts you in a better mood, but beyond that, the high is mostly physical, oddly enough, because the addiction is mental.

There's no need to nitpick over whether you took phrases from the du Toit blog or not.

I have no purely serious input at this time.

Well...it's not that I don't have any, it's more that I don't feel like giving it at the moment. , I'm babbling again...

LOL ok jake than lets just say my local swat teams are not outdone and leave it at that. lasseiz-faire is how most of them are handled.

Funny you shold say that Derag Becaus I shure didn't but now that I read my stuff I can see what you mean.

Against a surprise attack by terrorist, a nuclear attack (which would probably be the case if someone went nuts and tried to invade America) etc. an "irregular infantery" would be as useless as the "organized" infantry

Should the gouvernment not be able to recruit all these people (into the regular military) anyway in case of an emergency?

I'm quite sure that a bunch of people who tried to play guerilla would be treated different than a regular military unit who surrendered...

And look at the history of wars to see what the reactions to those tactics were...you cannot say that the situation for the civil population got better when the border between civillians and combatants got blurry. Even if the occupying force does not retaliate against civilians, such attacks make the soldiers extremely trigger-happy

And these laws where enforced and no revolution broke loose...


@Thorkild: sure, guerillas can be nasty for enemy forces in a war, but they could not win a war alone...and as I said, the results for the civil population are not that great

During the German's occupation of Denmark in ww2 opposition rose in the form of sabotage and such. The german response was to take out random civilians and shoot them on open street. So I think that 'illegal' combatants would be treated differently. (Guantanamo?)

I personally can see no use of weapons. I'd say ban everything except kitchen knifes...most criminals in Denmark use whatever they can get 'legally' I think an all-out ban would make things easier for the police and it would make me feel safer. If they caught someone carrying an illegal weapon....well....end of story...off to jail.

Daqar

Tyrfing: There are no such things as secrets in this world just slow moving rumors; as such the chances that at least one civilian would find said terroists and be able to remove a few are quite high. The army cant be everywhere... the population can.

Yep. As a matter of fact the gov't has enough guns stored up to give 2 to every man woman and child in the event of an invasion.

Exscuse me, my wording was suspect, let me explain. Soldiers in the field will be similarly pissed off at irregulars as they would at real soldiers... dead friends are dead friends, geneva conventions be damned when someone you hold close is killed... you know? the risk is the same, enlisted or not. For that matter doing gurilla warfare is not playing at it... don't make silly statements like that.

I never said it made the occupation easier for the civilians, just that it makes enemy opforces... twitchy, screws morale, and generally makes an organized army's life hell. Yes I and pretty much everyone I personally know would be more than willing to take those risks in the event of an invasion. They don't call us crazy americans for no reason.

If I am reading right than you just confirmed what I said.

As long as they have the support of certain groups, it is possible. The president has power to suspend the constitution in a state of emergency, IIRC. As long as the pres can fabricate some kind of terrorist nuclear attack or something as lethal, it is theoretically possible. Unfortunately, it would require a military force that doesn't care about ethics. So, it is impossible, but for different reasons.

A 9X19mm full-auto weapon is better at self-defense than a 50-cal rifle against another person because of its automatic fire ability. 30 rounds to the chest is generally much more lethal than a .50 cal to the chest. In the first, the target is going to be hamburger. With the second, he or she might get off a round or two.

NITPICK: Jake, don't you mean semi-auto OR bolt-action? The two are mutually exclusive.

Fabricating a full-auto weapon is easier than it looks. The British "Sten Gun" was supposedly made out of some plumbing stuff and a bedspring. So, an automatic weaponry ban isn't all that smart because anyone who has a background in welding can build one.

Thus, why humanity should not even be allowed to live. Fighting amongst ourselves with weapons like guns is pathetic. I pity anyone who believes they should own a gun for self-defense. Guns should only be allowed for hunting. We are way past the time our Constitution was written, when the amendment was passed. Why the hell would someone need a gun? "I might get shot, so I'm going to need a gun as well." Fight fire with fire, and all you get is a bigger flame. Big guns make you feel like a mighty being? Crap, you want to feel like a "man" (and I use the term loosely) box or wrestle or just have an all out fight with someone your same size and build. Guns are used to kill things, they have no other purpose. Anything more than something that could kill a deer should be banned (of course there is some big game that you would need something bigger to kill with, but IMO those weapons should be regulated strictly with supervision and only leased on the day of the hunt at an extremely expensive fee). Sorry for all you gun nuts, but seriously, what is the point of guns? You like shooting things, watching them go boom, watching something die? Maybe your views would be different if you saw two of your best friends get their heads blown off when you turned 16. Get rid of the damn things, they cause nothing but problems.

I don't know. The gun has been the opening shot for many developments:
Gunpowder was the first effective explosive.
The skills that making guns needed also may have influenced the industrial revolution.
Mass production was in part due to the needs for weapons.
Kevlar and bulletproof fabrics, which are extremely good materials for backpacks and other things that get bumped around a lot, are commercialized because of guns.

So they are good for more than killing people. Violence is always an answer, but almost never the easiest or most convienient way to solve a problem.

Violence breeds violence. It is a short term resolution unless you are willing to consider wiping out complete nations. Some nut will always come back and kill someone claiming revenge for a ravaged country that could have been torn apart 50 years ago. Sure, they came up with all that stuff, but what else could be learned from a gun now? The can continue making new ones, researching what can be done with them, but they should for the most part be in use for the military and police, not for private citizens. People claim it's their right to own a gun. What right do they have to fire it when it could possibly endanger someone else's life? How about we allow ANY kind of gun to be sold, just don't make any ammunition for it? Think of all the billions of people killed from a bullet. Does that justify the revolution they brought with them? To hell with explosives! I would rather be poor and hungry because the country didn't know what a gun was than to have people die continously from a creation. It just makes no sense.

Of course it is more likely that a civilian finds supspicious activities, but you don't need weapons for that. Except if you feel like playing rambo....

We evolved, and still are predators. Generally, the fact that most pacifists are a extreme minority shows that: we will not embrace peace until we go a step further. And I say, losing 1 life to improve the world is definitely worth it. Do we want to go back to the times where you own one set of clothes, where cars take months or years to put together, where electronics will not exist?

Half the technology we use today evolved from the military.

Oh, and even if nobody has a gun, the criminals will find a way to build one. It isn't all that hard to make a rifle... You're just endangering the populace.

Think of it. A rifle is basically a tube, a pin, and something that, when pressed, makes the pin hit the cartridge, sending the round through the tube.

destructiveness is relative, ther4 u cant rank weapons cept for "most destr." and "least destr."

And it is that kind of thinking that gets people killed. Yes, 1 life might be acceptable to you or even the majority. But one problem. Guns have take more than 1 life over the years. Think of all the bloodshed that happened because of guns. If not from guns, it might have happened a different way, but it may never have happened at all. Who knows? As for going BACK to the way things were, I wouldn't mind it one bit. Who needs a car? Ride a horse. Clothes? Fashion is overrated, just need something to cover your body. Electronics not existing? So what? Electronics made people lazy. Why do you think so many people are over weight nowadays? So many diets too, people looking for the quick way out. Get your ************ out on a farm and work 12 hour days 7 days a week and live off of what you make, THAT will sure as hell make you lose some weight AND put you in good shape. Again, you point to criminals, but so what? ORGANIZED criminals might do this, but then again deny them the proper resources and they are reduced to slingshots, sticks, and stones. REDUCING guns would endanger the populace you say? How often do you hear of a person killing someone else with a gun in self defense? Now how often do you hear of a person killing another person with a gun for any other reason? I rest my case.

So people have died. One death is a tragedy, and a million is a statistic. Guns have killed less people than many other causes. So who needs communications, or education, or science? Clothes allow you to survive the winter. Where do you live? Chances are that you'll be dead in a short while if you go around naked. Demolitions technology, the thing that KEEPS people from dying when a building has to be taken down, evolved from guns and their need of controllable explosives. My guess is that demolishing buildings with less controllable means will kill more people than guns.
Swords and other things are significantly nastier than guns. At least getting killed by a headshot is painless-instant death SHOULDN'T cause pain. I can't talk to the dead, so I don't know. Getting torn apart by a sword or mace isn't exactly painless, judging by how people generally start screaming when stabbed.
The human race's fascination with weapons goes back to when they were necessary for defense and hunting. They are still necessary now, for if one faction gives up its weapons, another will squi************.
Good laws are made by acknowledging what the human race IS, not what some idealist wants it to be.

it is the simple everlasting nature of men to kill eachother. deal w/ it.

If you ban guns, they'll go back to either making their own, or buying them on the black market. It's as simple as that. Anything that is banned will be sold on the black market. You're not helping anyone by banning all guns, because then everyone's going to be at the mercy of a criminal with one until the police show up. If someone who looks like a pro wrestler charges you with a tire iron, wouldn't it be handy to have a .50 magnum ready?

Apperently some ppl speak of weapons as if they reduce the crime and number of criminals...no they don't. Perhaps you should look at WHAT makes ppl turn criminal. Thats poverty and desperation. If you can raise the living standart of the ones lowest in the society to a point where they no longer need to steal to survive. Then they won't do it. I would think most killing happens because of reasons that can be traced back to poverty.

I agree that much good has come out of weapons, but that doesn't make the weapons good. There is a reason that policemen and soldiers get throughout education in the use of weapons. Its not something meant for the broad populace. Never was and so it shall remain.

Besides....IMO its a sign of a sick society if the populace doens't trust the police to do its job.

No offense...

Daqar

Actually Daqar your are not totaly correct about poverty and desperation alwasy creating criminals. Did you know that during the Great Depression the number of crimes went DOWN and not up? There will always be some people that comitte crimes and economics have little to do with it. The strongest deterant to criminal activity is socities attitude twords it. If a socity ias a whole find crime wrong and takes measusres to stop it, crime will decress greatly. If socity allows and condones crime (The Prohabition Era allowed the street gangs to grow into huge and powerful entities) the crime rate will go up.

Back to the Assult Weapons ban issue. It is a good idea to define it properly. In my opinion an assult weapon is a fast firing weapon (does not have to be full auto) designed with the intention of killing other human beings (easy way to say it. A military class weapon). You can use a 30-30 to shoot another person, but that was not it's designed purpose. An AK-47 most certainly was designed to kill people. sm

Definitely not...laws are made to keep the human instincts under control (not extinct them, but control them) and this state of control is what we call civilisation. Without it, we would be back to Darwinism nearly instantly.


To the weapons issue: Banning all kinds of firearms would be too much and would not stop people from killing each other, if you really plan to kill somebody, you will also be able to get a firearm and you don't even need a firearm to kill somebody.
But do you have to make murder and especially offences like manslaughter (where the killer did not plan everything one year in advance) easier by selling firearms, even military-grade stuff, to every idiot around? People will alway commit crimes, but if you make it easier for them, more people will commit crimes.

People also don't really care about the age limitations for selling alcohol...do you have to make it legal to sell vodka to a five year old because of that? (Of course it would also be idiotic to ban alcohol generally because of this...)

They can ban what ever they like if i for some reason need an assult weapon I'l jsut got to my umcle he cna take any gun and kick it up lol he once to a ww2 single shot rigle ( bolt actiong and turning it in a a full auto

Fox: Unless they really DID have a huge military budget back then, the miltary still wouldn't have followed them. And seeing that we havea huge military, paying top dollar for each solder is not exactly easy to do... I've only gotten to the 1900's in all of the US history classes I've taken, so I'll read up.

Anyway, I think the point has been pretty well worn that you don't need to mow down a common criminal. Often just brandishing a pistol is enough. Even if the guy does pull a pistol, you don't need to pull out an assault rifle on them.

If assault rifles aren't banned, then criminals will use assault rifles, and then common people would have to. And then everyone's armed with a weapon that can kill a group of people in one pull of the trigger, and everyone's paranoid, and life sucks.

Was out of town for a few days so I'm kinda behind the times on this thread. Backing up a litte, wanted to comment on a few things

I didn't realize it was an issue, but in California there isn't much confusion at least in the gun-owning populace of what an "assault weapon" is. It's a bit long, but not some convoluted nebulous definition that would make you cry in despair and dump everything down to your flintlocks. This isn't the actual text, but a quick little tidbit on some of the important ones. But as it relates to this conversation, your AR's and AK's are out.