Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[M14 Shooter]

Still no answer to the questions.
C'mon guys - step up to the plate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting that none of the people who wasnt to ban 'assault weapons' - and there are so very many here - have even tried to answer these questions.
Why is that?

 

[Brain357]

The OP is not dumb. But it does a beautiful job of illustrating how dumb the ban was.

As well as the people who supported it and/or want it reinstated.
That's why they refuse to answer the questions.

The best comment I have seen so far (as far as being funny) is either the claim that all semi-automatic firearms are assault weapons or that the number of rounds in a magazine determines whether a firearm is an offensive or a defensive weapons.

The ignorance concerning firearms is astounding. What is worse is the insistence that their claims are valid in the discussion of additional firearm laws.

Well it certainly is true that you don't need a 30 round magazine for defense. You have seen the study that shows defense on average is only 2 rounds. Only people I know of who actually fire that many times are mass shooters and criminals. If somebody shot that many times in defense they are probably a danger to everyone because somebody is going to get hit by a stray.

While I support other gun control measures, I don't support the assault weapon ban. They are pretty much a fancy looking hunting rifle. I would say a semi auto pistol with a hi cap magazine is a more dangerous weapon for a criminal. Can much more easily be snuck into places it shouldn't be. I strongly recommend people interested in gun control drop this one. It is a distraction from more important measures.

 

[SnowTiger]

The ban would not have stopped Sandy Hook.
If it were in place now, it would not stop every school shooting.

However, in such situations, there is a correlation between difficulty of access (especially on impulse crimes) and the criminal giving up. Premeditated, preplanned? No way.

I learned, through my own experience of being on a campus during a live shooter lockdown, that the gun debate is meaningless.

In such a situation, mine, Sandy Hook's, and others, the bad guys will always get their weapons. But in such a situation, having a gun myself to "protect you from such things" is even more meaningless. (And I say this as someone with very good aim).

If banning them can stop one out of 100 school shootings, do it in a heartbeat. Keeping them around certainly doesn't help any matter.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

The ban would not have stopped Sandy Hook.
If it were in place now, it would not stop every school shooting.
However, in such situations, there is a correlation between difficulty of access (especially on impulse crimes) and the criminal giving up.

OK... and how does that apply to the issue a hand?
Before/after the ban: You walk into a store and buy an AR-15.
During the ban: You walk into a store and buy a rifle just like an AR15, eccept for the bayonet lug and flash suppressor.
Where's the difficulty of access? Why would the criminal give up?

 

[SnowTiger]

Which is why I would support a much stricter ban.

Or require more stringent training to own one. Right to own a gun for a citizens' army? Then show you can complete the physical and mental requirements to be of any use to a militia. (Proper weight, strength, ability, etc- all assessed through a boot camp like training program, similar to the Swiss). If you really want a gun to protect yourself as per the second amendment, you're going to want the right training to go with it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is why I would support a much stricter ban.

Such as?
How will this ban prevent another Newtown?

Or require more stringent training to own one.

How does training stop someone from comitting a crime?

Right to own a gun for a citizens' army...?

False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[SnowTiger]

The second amendment is related to a philosophical concept in the era of classical liberalism.

True, the National Guard does not serve as a substitute for the individual right to own a gun. Rather, according to the philosophy the Fathers held, the individual should ism their own personal firearm in the case they would need to defend their homeland (which is why many at the time believed you should own land to own a gun- you must first "have a hearth to protect")

I digress. Defending your homeland, to the writers of the constitution, obviously meant both the small case (protecting your house personally), and the larger (should a citizens army ever need to be formed).

If you want a well regulated militia, bring necessary for the maintenance of a free state, then those that bear arms must be physically capable of doing so well.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment is related to a philosophical concept in the era of classical liberalism.

True, the National Guard does not serve as a substitute for the individual right to own a gun. Rather, according to the philosophy the Fathers held, the individual should ism their own personal firearm in the case they would need to defend their homeland (which is why many at the time believed you should own land to own a gun- you must first "have a hearth to protect")

I digress. Defending your homeland, to the writers of the constitution, obviously meant both the small case (protecting your house personally), and the larger (should a citizens army ever need to be formed).

If you want a well regulated militia, bring necessary for the maintenance of a free state, then those that bear arms must be physically capable of doing so well.

Nothing in your response has anything to do with the issue at hand, none of it negates anything I said, and none of it answers the questions I asked.
Please do try again.

One more question:
Setting aside for a moment the error in doing so... assuming that the 2nd amendment is indeed neccessarily linked to service in and the preservation of an effective militia, how can you argue that any ban on any class of weapons suitable for service in said militia passes constitutional muster?

 

[SnowTiger]

On the contrary, my response answers all of your questions.

I answered the first previously and need not do so again. For the second, barrier to obtainment is proven to deter at least some crime (a non-negligible part) making it worthwhile. Both stricter regulations and required military-like training (a la Switzerland) provide said barriers.

As to your most recent question, how we can justify banning any weapon at all when we need the second amendment to provide means to form a citizens army (we are not supposing here- we are reading literally the constitutional text), I would answer that this is why I prefer strict training over all and all banning


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Politico]

As well as the people who supported it and/or want it reinstated.
That's why they refuse to answer the questions.

The best comment I have seen so far (as far as being funny) is either the claim that all semi-automatic firearms are assault weapons or that the number of rounds in a magazine determines whether a firearm is an offensive or a defensive weapons.

The ignorance concerning firearms is astounding. What is worse is the insistence that their claims are valid in the discussion of additional firearm laws.

Well it certainly is true that you don't need a 30 round magazine for defense. You have seen the study that shows defense on average is only 2 rounds. Only people I know of who actually fire that many times are mass shooters and criminals. If somebody shot that many times in defense they are probably a danger to everyone because somebody is going to get hit by a stray.

While I support other gun control measures, I don't support the assault weapon ban. They are pretty much a fancy looking hunting rifle. I would say a semi auto pistol with a hi cap magazine is a more dangerous weapon for a criminal. Can much more easily be snuck into places it shouldn't be. I strongly recommend people interested in gun control drop this one. It is a distraction from more important measures.

It's not about need. Moving on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

If the assault weapons ban was so innocuous, as you admit in this thread, why the fuss?

Or, if the assault weapons ban was such an egregious 2nd amendment infringement, why wasn't it successfully challenged in court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Wasn't that capacity of magazine also banned?

 

[M14 Shooter]

On the contrary, my response answers all of your questions.

Indeed, not.

I answered the first previously and need not do so again.

I did not ask you to answer those again.
I did, however, ask several follwo-ups based on your response:
-Such as? (referring to you your mush stricter ban)
-How will this ban prevent another Newtown?
-How does training stop someone from comitting a crime?
You have not addressed these questions in any way.

For the second, barrier to obtainment is proven to deter...

Prevent. Prevent. Stop.
Not deter.
Thus, your respose does not address my questions.
Please do try again.

As to your most recent question, how we can justify banning any weapon at all when we need the second amendment to provide means to form a citizens army (we are not supposing here- we are reading literally the constitutional text), I would answer that this is why I prefer strict training over all and all banning

So, you agree that, under your incorrect interpretation of the 2nd, banning any sch class of firearm violates the constitution. Good!
Too bad you interpretation is, well, incorrect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the assault weapons ban was so innocuous, as you admit in this thread, why the fuss?

Or, if the assault weapons ban was such an egregious 2nd amendment infringement, why wasn't it successfully challenged in court?

I’m sorry – I don’t see your answers to my questions.
Please do try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wasn't that capacity of magazine also banned?

New manufacture.
The millions of existing mags were not, and sold freely.

 

[Brain357]

Wasn't that capacity of magazine also banned?

New manufacture.
The millions of existing mags were not, and sold freely.

Which made the ban rather weak. Was going to take a long time for it to really have an effect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wasn't that capacity of magazine also banned?

New manufacture.
The millions of existing mags were not, and sold freely.

So the picture you posted wasn't exactly true, to put it mildly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the assault weapons ban was so innocuous, as you admit in this thread, why the fuss?

Or, if the assault weapons ban was such an egregious 2nd amendment infringement, why wasn't it successfully challenged in court?

I’m sorry – I don’t see your answers to my questions.
Please do try again.

All court challenges to the 94 ban failed, miserably. You had your days in court and lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think for the record, as a reminder, it should be pointed out that the author of this thread, while he might be trying to pose as a reasonable advocate of gun rights,

believes all background checks are unconstitutional.