Question for the supporters of the proposed 2013 'assault weapon' ban

[M14 Shooter]

Then what's the point of having them? Why not ban them since they are dangerous but has no effect on proper use of a rifle?

The point is that there's no point to ban them as they do nothing to make a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine more deadly -- if you cannot show cause to ban an item - any item - then you cannot ban it.

I don't think the IDEA of deciding which guns to ban and which to allow is silly. At the least, it's a well-intentioned idea that cannot be enforced in the real world. At the best, though, it can save lives while not unnecessarily intruding on 2nd Amendment rights.

Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.

As with porn, it's hard to define "assault weapon" for legal purposes. Most people don't want the average citizen having a military grade weapon whose sole purpose is to kill humans.

Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.

 

[wjmacguffin]

The bill for the proposed 2013 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included one or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

I took time to read the proposed ban. The bill defines assault weapons as any that has a detachable magazine and one or more "military characteristics". The list above are the "military characteristics" in question, so if a rifle has a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, it's considered an assault weapon and would be banned. (BTW, the ban includes forward grips and threaded barrels designed for silencers.)

I'm still not sure why some of these are banned except that they're found in military-grade weaponry, which is the target of the ban. Perhaps they make guns (pistols, rifles, and shotguns) easier and faster to shoot, and therefore banning them make the guns harder and slower to shoot, which would mitigate some of the effects (not all) of incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook. If so, then I support it. If not, then I don't.

But I really appreciate the OP's question. He wanted explanations of WHY the particulars of the ban would make people safer, and he didn't just whine about liberals or scream, "2nd Amendment!" It seems like an honest request for education, which is rare on this site.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.

Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says nothing "exactly" about assault weapons. Let's look at the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The classic "fire in a theater" limit to free speech is considered Constitutional because, although it does abridge freedom of speech, it can hurt innocent people; it's not true; and it goes against the Founder's spirit of the law. In other words, the rights listed in our Constitution are not absolute; they can have limits without violating the Constitution.

The same applies to the 2nd Amendment. We can limit gun ownership (not take all guns, not ban them all, just some) and still be true to the Amendment.

The point of the Amendment was to create a militia because standing armies weren't popular or common; we needed an armed citizenry because, even though it presents a danger, America back then was a much more dangerous place (i.e., the frontier) and there was no permanent army. (At least not a sizable force. Volunteers and drafts were used in times of war instead of having a large force like we have today.) Also, there were no police departments in that time, furthering the need for armed citizens.

Today is different. We have the largest standing military in the world, several levels of police, and no frontier. I'm not suggesting the US is completely peaceful! I'm just saying the conditions which required the 2nd Amendment have changed. Therefore, we can make changes to what the 2nd Amendment defines as "arms" and "well regulated militia". We cannot ignore it, nor can we ban all weapons--but banning military-grade weapons is possible.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Today is different. We have the largest standing military in the world, several levels of police, and no frontier. I'm not suggesting the US is completely peaceful! I'm just saying the conditions which required the 2nd Amendment have changed. Therefore, we can make changes to what the 2nd Amendment defines as "arms" and "well regulated militia". We cannot ignore it, nor can we ban all weapons--but banning military-grade weapons is possible.

Indeed we can make changes in the 2nd Amendment. The procedure for doing so is outlined very nicely in Article V of the Constituion. First you must convince 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate to propose such an amendment to the states. Then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify the proposed amendment and you are done. Pretty straight forward, dont you think?

Now that the Senate has decided not to take of the Assault Weapons Ban because they do not even have 40 votes to pass such legislation, they should have some free time. Why don't you contact Harry Reid and tell him of your great idea? I am sure he will be very excited to propose such an amendment on behalf of the Democratic Party. You can drop him a message on this web site:

Contact Senator Reid

Good Luck!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.

Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says nothing "exactly" about assault weapons.

According to the SCoUS in Miller and Heller...
To be protected by the 2nd, a wepon must be suitable for service in the militia, part of the oridinary military equipment in common use at the time, and suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes one might thave for a firearm.

There is no better specific example of this sort of weapon than the M16/AR15 platform and no better general example than an 'assault weapon'. It is therefore impossible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' are not protected by the 2nd.

The classic "fire in a theater" limit to free speech is considered Constitutional because, although it does abridge freedom of speech, it can hurt innocent people;

No.
The 1st amendment does not protect it because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; similarly, the 1st does not protect slander and libel because they actually cause harm. We do not limit the exercise of a right, any right, because there is some possible potential for harm - because "it can hurt someone" - we limit it when it causes actual harm or created the previously mentioned condition.

The same applies to the 2nd Amendment. We can limit gun ownership (not take all guns, not ban them all, just some) and still be true to the Amendment.

For the same to apply to the 2nd amdendment, you have to show that simple posession/ownership of an AR15 harms people or place them in a condition of clear, present and immeduate danger; if you cannot, then your example dioes not apply and your argument fails.

I look forward to your deminstration as to how simple posession of an AR15 causes harm or creates that condition; I further look forward as to your argument as to how an AR15 does NOT do this once you remove the bayonet lug and flash suppressor.

 

[PaulS1950]

We limit the first amendment when it encroaches on the rights of others. Libel and slander afect the rights of another, in the case of yelling "fire" in a theater It encroches on the rights of others by causing panic in the crowd. with a lie just like slander encoaches on the rights of another's reputation.
The part of the ban that affects attachments for grenades is already illegal without a registratin of the firearm as a class three weapon.
It is perfectly legal if you pay the $200 fee and fill out the paperwork.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.

Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says nothing "exactly" about assault weapons.

According to the SCoUS in Miller and Heller...
To be protected by the 2nd, a wepon must be suitable for service in the militia, part of the oridinary military equipment in common use at the time, and suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes one might thave for a firearm.

There is no better specific example of this sort of weapon than the M16/AR15 platform and no better general example than an 'assault weapon'. It is therefore impossible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' are not protected by the 2nd.

The classic "fire in a theater" limit to free speech is considered Constitutional because, although it does abridge freedom of speech, it can hurt innocent people;

No.
The 1st amendment does not protect it because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; similarly, the 1st does not protect slander and libel because they actually cause harm. We do not limit the exercise of a right, any right, because there is some possible potential for harm - because "it can hurt someone" - we limit it when it causes actual harm or created the previously mentioned condition.

The same applies to the 2nd Amendment. We can limit gun ownership (not take all guns, not ban them all, just some) and still be true to the Amendment.

For the same to apply to the 2nd amdendment, you have to show that simple posession/ownership of an AR15 harms people or place them in a condition of clear, present and immeduate danger; if you cannot, then your example dioes not apply and your argument fails.

I look forward to your deminstration as to how simple posession of an AR15 causes harm or creates that condition; I further look forward as to your argument as to how an AR15 does NOT do this once you remove the bayonet lug and flash suppressor.

No response. Hmm.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm against the ban.

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The only one I can see that may be at all useful for law enforcement is the ban on folding stocks. They make the gun easier to hide under a coat.

In Texas we are allowed to legally hunt with suppressors.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The inclusion of the listed accessories determines which rifles are acceptabe and which are not, thus creating the distinction between the two. Do you agree that there's no rational basis for banning one set of rifles but not the other?

I wouldn't go that far. But I think the distinction is small enough not to matter a whole lot.

But they are there. The ability to throw a 30 round clip on them for one.

I just don't think the distinctions make all that much difference. I also think the whole thing is pointless with the number of pistols out there. Pistols are where it's at when it comes to crime. No question about that. Banning assault rifles/weapons or whatever the fuck people want to call them will have virtually no impact on anything.

I am okay with more regulation of firearms. But bans don't accomplish much of anything. This country already has too many guns for a ban to be at all effective. It's like trying to plug a damn after the town was washed away. What's the point?

Please learn the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine". You would sound less ignorant.