Assault weapons ban? Yes

[Bigfoot]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K8nda8yPNbI]Erika shooting the AR-15 - YouTube[/ame]


Yeah buddy, get some Erika!

 

[Crackerjaxon]

This would indeed be part of an outline of those supporting an AWB in court. And an AWB would indeed be Constitutional until such time as a court ruled otherwise, which would likely be the case.

Rifles account for a very small percentage of overall gun crime and violence. And AR 15s and similar weapons represent an even smaller percentage. Consequently the state can not document that a ban would have the desired effect of reducing gun violence, and absent a compelling governmental interest a court would have no other choice than to invalidate such a ban.

AR 15s and the like also meet the criterion of being ‘weapons in common use,’ since an overwhelming number of Americans own these rifles, their possession would clearly fall under Second Amendment protection.

Pure speculation on your part to assume the SC would not uphold an AWB, especially in light of the fact that as I keep saying a modern semi auto with a 100magazine is the functional equivalent of the machine guns that were available at the time the SC upheld the ban of fully auto weapons.

The Heller Court, when reaffirming Miller, determined that weapons considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ were not entitled to Second Amendment protection. To compare an AR 15 to a fully automatic rifle, or a sawed-off shotgun, for that matter, is idiocy – there is no legitimate civilian use for a fully automatic weapon or a sawed-off shotgun, whereas a semi-auto AR 15 has a legitimate civilian use as a sporting and target rifle; it clearly falls into the ‘in common use’ category, and possession of this firearm is consequently protected.

There is legitimate use in any weapon when defending your home and family.

That's why there are constitutional guarantees that we can own and use them.

 

[bucs90]

Pure speculation on your part to assume the SC would not uphold an AWB, especially in light of the fact that as I keep saying a modern semi auto with a 100magazine is the functional equivalent of the machine guns that were available at the time the SC upheld the ban of fully auto weapons.

The Heller Court, when reaffirming Miller, determined that weapons considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ were not entitled to Second Amendment protection. To compare an AR 15 to a fully automatic rifle, or a sawed-off shotgun, for that matter, is idiocy – there is no legitimate civilian use for a fully automatic weapon or a sawed-off shotgun, whereas a semi-auto AR 15 has a legitimate civilian use as a sporting and target rifle; it clearly falls into the ‘in common use’ category, and possession of this firearm is consequently protected.

There is legitimate use in any weapon when defending your home and family.

That's why there are constitutional guarantees that we can own and use them.

Remember when that nutjob in California stole the tank and rode through streets with it? Should you then be allowed to own an RPG for anti-tank defense?

Or, what about 9-11? Since we have been attacked, with planes, inside our borders, then should you be allowed to have an anti-aircraft gun on your roof?

 

[dnsmith35]

The Heller Court, when reaffirming Miller, determined that weapons considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ were not entitled to Second Amendment protection. To compare an AR 15 to a fully automatic rifle, or a sawed-off shotgun, for that matter, is idiocy – there is no legitimate civilian use for a fully automatic weapon or a sawed-off shotgun, whereas a semi-auto AR 15 has a legitimate civilian use as a sporting and target rifle; it clearly falls into the ‘in common use’ category, and possession of this firearm is consequently protected.

There is legitimate use in any weapon when defending your home and family.

That's why there are constitutional guarantees that we can own and use them.

Remember when that nutjob in California stole the tank and rode through streets with it? Should you then be allowed to own an RPG for anti-tank defense?

Or, what about 9-11? Since we have been attacked, with planes, inside our borders, then should you be allowed to have an anti-aircraft gun on your roof?

Those issues were already addressed. It is disingenuous to suggest civilians would want either a tank or an anti-aircraft gun on the roof. When addressing extremes don't be surprised when you get an extreme in a response.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Remember when that nutjob in California stole the tank and rode through streets with it? Should you then be allowed to own an RPG for anti-tank defense?

Or, what about 9-11? Since we have been attacked, with planes, inside our borders, then should you be allowed to have an anti-aircraft gun on your roof?

Both examples are explosives with no individual Constitutional protection. There are however provision in the NFA to own transferable destructive devices.

 

[rfx]

I'm surprised there is not more discussions about freedom. People bring up the hunting argument, its totally irrelevant and was not the intention of the 2nd amendment. The government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. We are their master. If you give up your means to fight oppression, tyranny and injustice they you have become a slave. People have become too complacent in their sheltered lives. If you don't think what happened in Nazi Germany could happen again you are sorely mistaking. If you take away a private law abiding citizens right to possess and train with rifles comparable to the basic (or even watered down version of) standard weapons the military or police have access to, you have become enslaved by your protectorate. We will essentially become China where the government is all powerful and can do with you what it wants, when it wants, for how long it wants.

What qualifies a cop or member of the military to possess these personal firearms any more then a law abiding citizen. There is nothing stopping me from signing up for the police force or military service if I choose. If anything police and some military personnel are more insane and violent then your average law abiding citizen. Signing away your freedom and civil liberties based and fearful knee jerk reactions to the extremely rare act of random or mass violence is not the answer. The actual chance of yourself or a loved one being killed with an "assault or military style" (whatever that means) weapon is extremely, extremely rare so who really is overly fearful here? You have about as much chance of winning the lottery which in fact you probably have a better chance of.

In fact, concerning the case of the Batman theater shooting, law abiding citizens were prohibited by law to carry concealed firearms into the venue. That law didn't stop the shooter from bringing in his guns. If several of the patrons, including several military personnel in attendance, had been carrying handguns, the shooter may have shot 2 or 3 people before he was stopped. Instead he had free reign to keep killing until HE decided he was done, mag capacity would have made no difference. The fact is that more law abiding, firearm educated citizens need to arm themselves and be allowed to carry personal sidearms into certain establishments with possibly the exclusion of dedicated bars/courthouses and the like.

The OP stated that most firearm owners are untrained and uneducated. That is totally untrue. If he'd ever been in a gun shop or around the gun culture he'd know that there is a vast amount of training and information available and utilized by gun owners and the shops as well as other gun owners strongly encourage training and education. The best way to stop being fearful of things you don't understand is to educate yourself on the subject. Hating on "assault weapons" base on ignorance is no different then hating on another culture based on ignorance.

In response to the OPs argument of a "large capacity magazine" constituting a machine gun, most machine guns are belt fed and have ammo box capacities well in excess of 100 rounds, the average assault rifle clip is 20 to 30 round. Machine guns have extremely high rates of fire and are vastly incomparable to semi-auto rifles. I wound't budge and inch on assault weapons or their magazines as people are attempting to erode our rights little by little. The term slippery slope is the absolute truth. I could see a ban on drum style mags maybe, but every citizen has the right to own a semi-auto "assault rifle" with a standard 30 round mag. with absolutely NO compromise whatsoever.

If you really wanted to make and informed decision on gun control you would go take a firearms safety class then go down to the gun range and rent some of these "scarey black guns" to test them out yourself and eliminate the stigma and unwarranted fear of such weapons.

The world will never be a totally safe place and it is a futile and foolish venture to attempt to make it safer by taking away law abiding citizens rights to defend their freedom and liberty from any enemy whether foreign or domestic. People who scoff at the suggestion that a governmental tyranny could happen in the US are unfortunately mislead and uninformed. History has proven that the majority of citizens never see it coming. Giving up our guns will only make it happen sooner.

Learn from history and don't make decisions based on misinformation from the media and government. Don't make decisions based on the fear of what is foreign to you. Educate yourself and empower yourself. America is supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave, not the land of the enslaved and fearful.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So not one of you supposed experts can see the equivalence between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon (quibble with the term if you want to, I'm using it to denote any weapon that can be fitted with a with a large capacity magazine)? It's about the uninterrupted stream of fire.
It was this devastating firepower that led the Supreme Court to allow the banning of such weapons of mass destruction for civilian ownership.

As for those who think they are part of a well regulated militia because they have a gun, well regulated would include training, testing, licensing, reviewing of all weapons owners as well as registration of all weapons. Unless you were in the armed forces its unlikely you have ever had any formal firearms training. And by the way, who do you think the framers had in mind to do the regulating? Let me guess, self regulating right? Kind of like the banks self regulated us into the Great Recession.

Finally, the reason that well regulated militias are mentioned in the Constitution is because Madison, Jefferson and others didn't think that the United States should have a standing army. They were afraid it would lead to military adventurism, a la our foolish and so very costly invasion of Iraq. Any of you "originalists" ever make any complaint about that abridgment of the Constitution?

This post is so wrong on many levels and they have all been explained to you several times. Why keep posting this obvious bullshit..oh an agenda, never mind.

What is bullshit is your refusal to admit that one of the features and really the most important feature that distinguishes a machine gun from one that is not is its large capacity magazine. Yes machine guns are "mounted" and sub machine guns are hand held but without a large capacity magazine they would simply be automatic weapons. An automatic weapon with a ten round clip is not really any more dangerous than a semi auto with a ten round clip. It's the size of the mag that makes the difference. Weapons designed to accept large capacity magazines should not be in the hands of civilians.

Ask yourself this one question.........why is it that you are the only one who defines an assault rifle by the size of it's magazine?
Do you think you're smarter then everyone else?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?

My mind's eye sees things from a Hollywood movie.

Or a cartoon.
If this hunter was looking down his rifle at a duck he would be thinking......damn I grabbed the wrong gun.
Or maybe.....No way Im gonna hit this duck with my rifle. I knew I should have brought my shotgun. And I hope the gamewarden doesn't see me take the shot or I'm in deepshit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

We still have an assault weapons ban,it has been in place and has not changed since the 1930's.
Semi-automatic weapons shoot one bullet at a time.
Assault weapons shoot multiple bullets at a time.
M-16 full Auto
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZuRmqd5s_U]shooting the m16 at full auto - YouTube[/ame]

AR-15 semi auto
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI]Erika shooting the AR-15 - YouTube[/ame]

Do you know why they are painted Black?
To cut down on the glare.

The AR15 is used in hunting,sports and defense.

Well look at that. Erika has a better shooting stance then our prez.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Heller Court, when reaffirming Miller, determined that weapons considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ were not entitled to Second Amendment protection. To compare an AR 15 to a fully automatic rifle, or a sawed-off shotgun, for that matter, is idiocy – there is no legitimate civilian use for a fully automatic weapon or a sawed-off shotgun, whereas a semi-auto AR 15 has a legitimate civilian use as a sporting and target rifle; it clearly falls into the ‘in common use’ category, and possession of this firearm is consequently protected.

There is legitimate use in any weapon when defending your home and family.
That's why there are constitutional guarantees that we can own and use them.

Remember when that nutjob in California stole the tank and rode through streets with it? Should you then be allowed to own an RPG for anti-tank defense?

Or, what about 9-11? Since we have been attacked, with planes, inside our borders, then should you be allowed to have an anti-aircraft gun on your roof?

None of this is relevant to a discussion regarding guns.

 

[editec]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

So., following the logic of the above, if a rifle does not ALSO have a large capacity magazine then it is NOT an assault rifle?

So its not really assault rifles that annoy people its ASSAULT MAGAZINES?

 

[OriginalShroom]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

So., following the logic of the above, if a rifle does not ALSO have a large capacity magazine then it is NOT an assault rifle?

So its not really assault rifles that annoy people its ASSAULT MAGAZINES?

They really show their lack of knowledge, don't they?

 

[Truthmatters]

hashing out the details is how a society desides what the right thing to do is.


do you seek to inform or merely insult?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

So., following the logic of the above, if a rifle does not ALSO have a large capacity magazine then it is NOT an assault rifle?

So its not really assault rifles that annoy people its ASSAULT MAGAZINES?

Something like this

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

 

[nodoginnafight]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

I understand your point, however I don't think what is going through someone's mind is really a sound basis for legislation. And I think the definition of what is and what is not an "assault rifle" has been a bit of a moving target for quite some time now. If it's the magazines that you are concerned with, then why not just target the magazines?

Why also go after certain characteristics of a weapon that are really not a concern?

I humbly suggest that if you are going to be successful on gun control, you should narrow your focus as tightly as possible and put your full attention on the most troubling capabilities and characteristics. On this one, any over-reaching could very easily spell defeat.
Just MHO

 

[OriginalShroom]

hashing out the details is how a society desides what the right thing to do is.


do you seek to inform or merely insult?

This has got to win the "Hypocritical Post of the Day"

 

[OriginalShroom]

"... By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important."

John F. Kennedy

 

[GuyPinestra]

"... By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important."

John F. Kennedy

Kennedy was a Conservative??

Looks like he was when it came to the 2nd Amendment, doesn't it?

 

[dnsmith35]

It takes more than a large capacity magazine to make it an assault weapon. It also takes more than semi-automatic to make it an assault weapon. Many look a likes have been called assault weapons erroneously. The most important tell is the mode of fire; either burst of 3 or full automatic are required to be a true assault weapon.

The issue of the magazine is separate and should be addressed separately. But even so, banning large capacity magazines does little to make the shooter less lethal as anyone with a little experience can use smaller capacity mags to do as much or more damage than one with a large magazine. According to the State Police in Connecticut, the shooter at the school changed magazines 3 times. He obviously did the change fast enough to prevent anyone from stopping him.

That said, I have no problem with large capacity magazines being banned. I don't need one and haven't since my last combat tour in the Army. Even then shooting many times without changing mags was more a convenience than a need. A shooter can hit more targets shooting one aimed shot at a time than rapid fire burst or full auto.

When ever I read about some gun control freak wanting to ban assault weapons I have to laugh at the ignorance behind his interest.

And when I hear of gun control freaks whining about militias not existing unless the people are trained I laugh again at their ignorance and just refer them to the US Code 10 Para 311.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.(This latter militia consists of warm bodies of the proper age who will be trained by professionals as needed or OJT if required)

(This latter militia consists of warm bodies of the proper age who will be trained by professionals as needed or OJT if required)

THIS IS YOUR OPINION AND NOT PART OF THE DEFINITION OF THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA

That said, I have no problem with large capacity magazines being banned. I don't need one and haven't since my last combat tour in the Army.

Suppose you live in California and they have one of those major earthquakes, and their is no contact of emergency personal such as law enforcement for at least a week would you want a
1. five round capacity magazine
2. 10 round capacity magazine
3. 20 round capacity magazine
4. 30 round magazine capacity


Oh and I would not want to place a restriction on what you thought you needed to defend your life I'm not an elite Statist like you are.

Cut and paste quote of the statute.

US Code 10 Para 311.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[dnsmith35]

There is legitimate use in any weapon when defending your home and family.
That's why there are constitutional guarantees that we can own and use them.

I had the unfortunate need to defend my home from an armed intruder. I don't set my alarm just for the night, but it beeps quietly which wakes me up instantly. My gun rack is next to me and I keep a 12 gauge double barrel loaded with buckshot at the ready all the time. I could see the door of the hall and when his flash light shined past and I could see his hand gun I aimed and shot as he stuck his head through the door. Fortunately the kitchen in which he stood had a tile floor so it wasn't that hard to clean up and only a couple of shot hit the wall. (easy to plug and paint) My wife was on the phone with 911 dispatcher at the time and the guy was well known to the police.

Thank God I did not have a gun safe or a trigger lock to keep me from using my firearm. BTW, in Heller the USSC held that requiring a gun safe or trigger lock is unconstitutional.