Assult rifle ban to expire!!

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: cquark

The "fire" ruling was sensible, however. You have to attack the precedence not the person who made the precedence. that is an ad hom attack and is useless.

There was no yelling "fire" in a theatre ruling.

The course case from which the English language gets the statement about shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre had nothing to do with theatres, but with war protests. He was using the fire in a crowded theatre as an analogy with the war protests to rule against them.

ETA: I googled to find that the SC case was Schenk vs US (1919).

I'm glad you googled, but there's no point to your post at all. But still, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not allowed. Go try it. And there is a reason - because it is dangerous to the people in the theatre should you be lying.

I thought it important to point out that I was not and do not engage in ad hominem attacks.

Let me bring this back to gun control. Just as there are regulations on free speech, a constitutionally granted right, there should be regulations on gun ownership, another constitutionally granted right.

I agree that there can be (not necessarily should be) such regulations, but what should their basis be? You disagreed with the basis that I suggested, so let me ask you what you think the basis of gun regulations should be?

"There is no law prohibiting you from saying "Fire" in a crowded theater. There ARE laws against causing public panics. If there IS a fire in a crowded theater, then yelling "Fire" is not a crime. Yelling it solely to cause a panic could be cause for prosecution, especially if anyone is injured as a result. That's why we have the court system, in order to review the laws as applied in a case by case basis." -antieverything

What the shat does this have to do with gun control. Try to actually read the argument like cquark does.

cquark -

I think the basis of gun regulations should be that which maximizes the safety of both citizens and the police. Why safety? Because the purpose of any gun is to inflict harm, whether it be on person, animal, or object.

Because the police are charged with protecting the citizens of this country and enforcing the law, I believe that they need to have more firepower than the citizens as well as more protection against guns than the normal citizen does. I believe that many assault rifles are high powered enough to burn through body armor, and in addition they fire many rounds per minute that would virtually guarantee a kill against a police officer.

I think that citizens should be allowed to carry handguns only through licensing to screen out criminals. They should not be allowed IMO to carry weapons that could easily kill a police officer. (put a highlight on easy - cause a headshot with any weapon is almost always a kill.)

The balance of the safety of citizens and law enforcement IMO changes with the times, which is why we cannot apply such old law to today's society. There was no assault rifle 200 years ago.

Because 'tard, if the lame "Fire" issue is going to be used to challenge the constitutionality of gun ownership, then you better fuggin know what the "Fire" issue is. Yelling "Fire" has nothing to with consitutionality, it's a strawman you fool.

Are you in first grade? maybe if i type in caps you can read. The point was that there are REGULATIONS ON FREE SPEECH, which is a CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED RIGHT. Thus, THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR THERE TO BE REGULATIONS ON CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED RIGHTS, such as the RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. The fire issue, or whatever the hell you want to call it, put a regulation on a constitutionally granted right.

Finally, GET A BRAIN. I said NOTHING about constitutionality. I wasn't attacking any argument, so there is NO STRAWMAN. I am making my OWN argument.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Also, I noticed that the NRA is withholding their endorsement of GWB until this AWB dies. Nice going GWB.
Anyway, though this will hurt Kerry in many states i.e. South, Penn, Michigan, Ohio, I see he is attacking GWB over letting the ban lapse. I think Kerry has to shore up/rev up his base support and women support so he is attacking GWB on this issue.

It is important to point out that Shrub had no control over the sunset of the ban, unless Congress put a bill to him to sign. Guess which presidential candidate is a member of Congress?

Bush has tremendous weight in deciding what bills come before Congress. Guess which party controls what bill comes before Congress? The Republican Party. Bush's Party.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I never understood this argument in the gun control debate. Criminals don't care about gun laws, they will get the guns anyway .. .well why have laws against speeding, stealing or murder. People who want to break the law will do so anyway? Why have the AWB in place because manufacturers in China can modify those guns and skirt the ban. Well, if a law has loopholes, you should close the loopholes, you don't throw up your hands and say this is too complicated.


Also, I noticed that the NRA is withholding their endorsement of GWB until this AWB dies. Nice going GWB.
Anyway, though this will hurt Kerry in many states i.e. South, Penn, Michigan, Ohio, I see he is attacking GWB over letting the ban lapse. I think Kerry has to shore up/rev up his base support and women support so he is attacking GWB on this issue.

the point is not that "well since the law is going to be broken we may as not well have it" that is more thna a bit oversimplistic and innaccurate. the point is the only people that will be disarmed are those that do not break the law.

 

[ciba]

I personally have two major problems with the AWB.

1) The people most likely to need disarming (those that obey the law) are the ones who are disarmed with the AWB.
and
2) The AWB doesn't ban automatic rifles like people think it does. It just bans scary looking features. Bayonet lugs, folding stocks and pistol grips... not to mention pistols over a certain weight.

If you don't understand the criticism of the AWB, take this quiz to see how you do.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Boy am I glad you're not running the country. I'm suprised you think the police are a useful force seeing as how we could all defend ourselves if we all had guns. You guys will be aiding terrorists and criminals by allowing this law to drop.

Your retort says absolutely nothing. To me it sounds like you're hiding under the "fight terrorism" blanket on this issue. Whatever it takes to fight terrorism is justifiable, right? The ends justify the means?

Terrorists outside of our country are not getting weapons from inside the US. They aren't buying M240's at gun shows and pawn shops, and shipping them back to Afghanistan. And when we were attacked inside our borders, the terrorists didn't even use assault weapons. They used box cutters and threatened that they had bombs on the plane. So how again is this law keeping anything out of the hands of terrorists? Do you honestly believe that its easier to get an AK-47 in the US than it is in Pakistan or Nigeria?

While I agree that terrorists have plenty of foreign and illegal means to obtain firearms that American gun control legistlation have no means to prevent, please don't derail the discussion into a personal one as totalcommand hasn't said anything that resembles what you suggest above, with the ends of preventing terrorism justifying any means.

Yes, he did basically say that, as far as I'm concerned. "You guys will be aiding terrorists and criminals by allowing this law to drop", to me stinks of McCarthyism. Maybe you disagree, oh well.

If they are going to commit an attack in the US, i'm sure theyll get their ak-47 at the next gun show should the ban be lifted. Here's a sweet little link for you: http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/27/guns.htm

My point is that it would make it easier for terrorists to get assault weapons. Don't give me this "ends justify means" b.s.

It does have to do with ends justifying the means. Hey, I'm all for the fight against terrorism. But anytime an anti-terrorism idea is proposed that also restrains one of our basic rights as citizens of this country, at the very least we all need to perk up and give the idea some serious attention. There is a big difference between saying, "We need to tighten our borders to keep terrorists from coming into the country," versus saying, "We need to enact more controls on the 2nd amendment to keep terrorists from getting weapons." These are very broad generalizations, but I hope they get my point across. We can win this war against terrorism without losing all of our civil liberties at the same time.

 

[sillymofo]

But dude, the MP5 only have 9mm rounds, with an M-16A2 hower, you'll have the best of everything, power, accuracy, reliability. Just make sure you hold down crouch when shooting, and your frame rate is good.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Now you're talking. This post is the first I've seen with some reasoning in it. There is also an amendment granting freedom of speech. However, there are regulations on yelling "fire" in a theater, for reasons of safety. Similarly, there needs to be regulation of guns, for the reason of safety of the public.

You're right that some regulations of our rights are permissible, but I would like to point out that the SC justice who mentioned yelling "fire" in a theatre was the one who used such reasons to suppress protests against US involvement in WWI, an ironic example of how such reasonable justifications for abridgements of our rights are often used to support unreasonable restrictions such as the "assault weapons" ban, with its odd, gerrymandered boundary between which weapons are assault weapons and which are not..

Where do you draw the line between two killing weapons. How much killing effectiveness is too much (i.e. nuke/explosives vs. guns)

I would look to the balance of power between citizens, police, and military in colonial times, where citizens were as well armed as police, but didn't have artillery like the military had.

I see that you support legalizing drugs, which is in line with your views on drugs. But I'm not sure how many others out there could say the same.

Yeah, I'm probably one of the few people who generally support both the ACLU and NRA.

"that focus on appearance as opposed to effective security is the kind of logic that aids terrorists." - box cutters are what the terrorists of 9/11 used to take over the planes. These as well as razors should be off planes IMO.

You're right that such weapons were used then, but as I pointed out, such weapons are insufficient to subdue passengers after 9/11.

I wasn't so much intending to make an argument for bladed weapons on airplanes, but was pointing out that airline searches aren't a terribly efficient security policy or mechanism. They're too easy to avoid and their micro-focus on silly items like nail clippers is pointless. We'd be better off investing in other areas of security, like securing the pilot's cabin or adding an automatic non-overridable landing button which would land the plane at the nearest airport regardless of what the pilot does (which according to papers I read in late 2001 is quite possible.)

The "fire" ruling was sensible, however. You have to attack the precedence not the person who made the precedence. that is an ad hom attack and is useless. There is a degree of regulation that is needed for many things, and I believe that the assault class gun is one of them.

If the example of box cutters doesn't suit you, how about allowing guns on planes?

Looking to colonial times for an answer of how to balance the citizens and the police is a mistake IMO. Back then, militia actually existed. Today, such forces no longer exist. Militia were needed to battle Native Americans back then, and today we are at peace with them.


"No, they shouldn't. The process for dealing with terrorists before 9/11 was different than it is now. No one would be able to take a plane hostage nowadays with a razor, boxcutter, pocket knife, or hell even a gun. A: the passengers wouldn't allow it. I'm confident that there WOULD be members willing to sacrifice themselves to save the plane. And B:, if any more planes are hijacked, they will be shot down, and the terrorists know this.

But those details are besides the point of this thread. Terrorists are not getting their weapons from inside the US. That idea is preposterous. If they were doing that, then why didn't they use these assault weapons on 9/11?" - Triumph

Boy am I glad you're not running the country. I'm suprised you think the police are a useful force seeing as how we could all defend ourselves if we all had guns. You guys will be aiding terrorists and criminals by allowing this law to drop.

Totalcommand, in the real world, the police don't defend citizens from criminals. The function of the police is to try catch the criminals after the fact. That's great, but catching criminals and bringing them to justice doesn't make you any less dead, or your wife or daughter any less raped. Maybe you don't care about stuff like that - maybe you can live with watching someone rape and beat your wife for the 20 minutes it'll take for that cruiser to arrive. But I can't. I have a responsibility to defend my loved ones using anything legally available to me. The Constitution guarantees it, and you have no right to take that away.

That's absurd. Police are a deterrent force. Should we just distribute guns to citizens so they can all defend themselves? Then we wouldn't need police because the citizens would just defend themselves and there would be no one to catch after the fact. I've lived pretty long, and I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Why? because criminals are afraid of police, not of citizens, whether they have guns or not.

Let me just add that i'm talking about assault weapons that burn through the body armor of police forces. I'm NOT talking about handguns and things like that. I'm fine with that as long as it's licensed.

If you think modern criminals are afraid of police you're living in a fantasy world. They know that the minute they leave the scene of the crime the odds of them doing jail time are almost nil. They also know that most Americans are sheep who have been conditioned all their lives to "just give them what they want and dial 911". That's how those terrorists were able to hijack 3 planes with goddamn box cutters.

 

[Bulk Beef]

But anytime an anti-terrorism idea is proposed that also restrains one of our basic rights as citizens of this country, at the very least we all need to perk up and give the idea some serious attention. There is a big difference between saying, "We need to tighten our borders to keep terrorists from coming into the country," versus saying, "We need to enact more controls on the 2nd amendment to keep terrorists from getting weapons." These are very broad generalizations, but I hope they get my point across. We can win this war against terrorism without losing all of our civil liberties at the same time.

Isn't it ironic that the people who cry the loudest about the PATRIOT Act and the erosion of civil liberties are usually the first to disparage the 2nd Amendment?

 

[YellowRose]

Originally posted by: NeoV
while the AWB certainly has some holes in it, at least someone tried to do something. You morons who say "what about cars - they kill more people than guns do?" - are a bunch of freaking idiots. If you can't admit that violent crimes in the USA are a problem, then get your head out of your 4ss and wake up.

Where do you live that you feel the need to sleep with a gun as "your pillow"? Is that really a wise move anyway?

Lets be honest here. I guess you will relie on the police to protect you from a crime. Problem with that line of thinking is that the Police are an after the event org. You are responsible for your safety not the police. You therefore should have the right to choose what weapon you want for your personal defense. SO I want a MP5 and a streetsweeper.

Just a liberal democrats Idea on hte AwB.

 

[Cobalt]

I've been buying them for almost two years...































In Counter-Strike.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Are you in first grade? maybe if i type in caps you can read. The point was that there are REGULATIONS ON FREE SPEECH, which is a CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED RIGHT. Thus, THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR THERE TO BE REGULATIONS ON CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED RIGHTS, such as the RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. The fire issue, or whatever the hell you want to call it, put a regulation on a constitutionally granted right.

Finally, GET A BRAIN. I said NOTHING about constitutionality. I wasn't attacking any argument, so there is NO STRAWMAN. I am making my OWN argument.

Quite hostile. Indicative of one on the losing end of an argument.

You stated that there is a limit on free speech, but you're wrong. There's no limit on freedom of speech, but depending on the outcome of that speech, one does have to bear the responsibility of their words.

Likewise, there's a constitutional right to bear arms that cannot be infringed. However, should one misuse their firearms and another person is injured or killed within the consitutionally protected rights set out (just like misusing the freedom of speech to yell "Fire!") then the person who pulled the trigger has to pay the consequences set out by law.

The constitution grants the right to yell "Fire!" if there is a fire and people need to evacuate a building or risk burning alive. The constitution also grants the right to own a gun. If either of those rights is abused, then punishment can be applied.

Just saying that free speech can be abridged isn't correct. The issue isn't free speech, it's breaking other laws through misuse of constitional rights.

 

[arsbanned]

'tis funny, someone who cannot spell assault is going to buy an assault rifle.... Funny in a very sad kind of way.

 

[Tab]

Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Prove to me that you need your car to work. You can do just fine with a bicycle. I'll be over tomorrow to take your car away from you.

The "you don't need it" is quite possibly the most un-American argument of them all.

 

[Mookow]

The Constitutional argument against gun control: The Second Amendment was created not to make sure people could carry guns due to the threat of Indian attacks, but the threat of a tyrannical government. People thinking otherwise may wish to check out, for example, the writings of Thomas Jefferson regarding the matter, before deciding why the Constitution was amended to say that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The fact of the matter is, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the citizens of the USA had a weapon available to them that was far superior to the standard issue weapon supplied to soldiers. It was called the Kentucky rifle (despite mostly being made in Penn). The only superior weapon used in the war was the Ferguson rifle, and thankfully the British were too stupid to produce it for wide spread use. On a side note, the Constitution ensures the right to keep and bear arms. Which at the time was defined as weapons up to and including infantry weapons. Heavy arms (cannons and whatnot) were known as ordnance. Thus, owning an Abrams tanks is not a constitutionally protected right (though I'd love to have one while everyone else is stuck in traffic ).

Pragmatic argument: England banned a huge number of guns, and essentially made the right to self-defense illegal (though that did involve other laws). Gun crimes are up. Home invasions are up. IIRC, England now has the highest victimization rates of any industrialized nation. They didnt have that prior to banning private ownership of handguns. As a matter of a fact, if you look at the history of gun control in England and plot it against the crime rate in England, crime has gone up as England has tightened restrictions against gun ownership. Obviously, this does not prove that gun control raises crime rates (correlation != causation), but it does show that increasing gun control has not led to decreasing crime rates. The Aussies have also been experiencing increased crime since they severely tightened their gun control legislation. Gun control does not reduce crime. Since criminals are going to be able to procure weapons, I want to have equal footing. People willing to give up liberty for the illusion of safety deserve what they end up getting.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Prove to me that you need your car to work. You can do just fine with a bicycle. I'll be over tomorrow to take your car away from you.

The "you don't need it" is quite possibly the most un-American argument of them all.

Yep?I tend to agree. Nothing is scarier to me than groups of Americans trying to put restrictions on what other law abiding citizens can or cannot own.

That?s right up there with limiting what people can do, think, or say IMO.
As long as one humans activities don?t directly inconvenience, harm, or burden another individual, there shouldn't be anything to debate. In the instances where these types of weapons are misused, I fully support the idea of persecuting those people to the fullest extent of the law.

Increasing the penalties on current gun crimes is every bit of a deterrent as banning more weapons is.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Ignoring the fact that I do not need to prove why I need the ability to exercise my constitutionally protected rights, I will discuss why someone may wish to use one of the above. However, since the M-16 is not a Assault Weapon as it was defined by the AWB, I will discuss the closest weapon that the AWB did ban: the AR-15. The AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle firing the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. The 5.56mm NATO is less likely to be lethal as compared to a 9mm or higher powered pistol round or a load of buckshot, after passing through an interior wall*. Why this is a good thing in a home defense scenario should be obvious. The high magazine capacity and low recoil are nice, too. As is the fact that the AR-15 is a very versatile weapon (especially if you start modifying it, which is extremely easy to do): target shooting, plinking, and hunting are other things you can use it for besides defense. And yes, since the AR-15 fires a round that was originally developed for varmint shooting (the 223 Remington), it is a valid choice for smaller game. Such as prairie dogs, groundhogs, and coyotes.

*link

BTW, see sig.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Prove to me that you need your car to work. You can do just fine with a bicycle. I'll be over tomorrow to take your car away from you.

The "you don't need it" is quite possibly the most un-American argument of them all.

Actually it wont work. Again, my question was prove to me you actually need a assualt rifle for home defense. A car is made for transporation and isnt made to kill human beings and has a far greater use than a weapon of death.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Actually it wont work. Again, my question was prove to me you actually need a assualt rifle for home defense. A car is made for transporation and isnt made to kill human beings and has a far greater use than a weapon of death.

And yet they result in many more deaths per year in the USA than guns. Used more often? Yes. Causes more deaths? Yes.

And your question is still retarded.



BTW, if you dont like the Patriot Act, the ironing is delicious

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Come try and break into my house, you'll get all the proof you can handle. I also use it for coyote hunting, fox hunting, and all kind of predator hunting. Besides that it's just fun to shoot!!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Come try and break into my house, you'll get all the proof you can handle. I also use it for coyote hunting, fox hunting, and all kind of predator hunting. Besides that it's just fun to shoot!!

I see no reason why a Glock can't do the the job just as well as a M-16 or Ak-47 :|

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Come try and break into my house, you'll get all the proof you can handle. I also use it for coyote hunting, fox hunting, and all kind of predator hunting. Besides that it's just fun to shoot!!

I see no reason why a Glock can't do the the job just as well as a M-16 or Ak-47 :|

Because I don't need to own one of everything, unless of course your buying. As a farmer I have a legitimate need for such a weapon. I have a M-1 also, but it is a bit clumsy for home defense. The same is true of my shotgun and deer rifle. I have a .22 pistol, but it doesn't have enough knock down power to be trusted in such a situation.

The right to bear arms doesn't say anything about home defense anyway. I could agree that some laws would be helpful in the big cities, but don't force them on me. One law that was up and I don't know if was passed, is the cop killer bullets (teflon coated). Although a burgler might have a bullet proof vest, it is highly unlikely and I could care less if they outlawed them. They might have, I don't remember how that turned out? But let me keep my automatic weapons or you will have war on your hands.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzitThe right to bear arms doesn't say anything about home defense anyway. I could agree that some laws would be helpful in the big cities, but don't force them on me. One law that was up and I don't know if was passed, is the cop killer bullets (teflon coated). Although a burgler might have a bullet proof vest, it is highly unlikely and I could care less if they outlawed them. They might have, I don't remember how that turned out? But let me keep my automatic weapons or you will have war on your hands.

Coating the bullet in Teflon does nothing to increase penetration. Some AP bullets are indeed coated in Teflon, but that is so you do not place as much wear on the barrel.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Tabb
Someone prove to me they actually need a Assault Rifle (M-16, Ak-47) for home defense.

Prove to me that you need your car to work. You can do just fine with a bicycle. I'll be over tomorrow to take your car away from you.

The "you don't need it" is quite possibly the most un-American argument of them all.

Actually it wont work. Again, my question was prove to me you actually need a assualt rifle for home defense. A car is made for transporation and isnt made to kill human beings and has a far greater use than a weapon of death.

While the car example may or may not have been a good one, you're avoiding his core point, which is that you're begging the question. The US Constitution grants the right to bear arms. If you want to reduce or abridge that right, it's you who are required to support your argument.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: 1EZduzitThe right to bear arms doesn't say anything about home defense anyway. I could agree that some laws would be helpful in the big cities, but don't force them on me. One law that was up and I don't know if was passed, is the cop killer bullets (teflon coated). Although a burgler might have a bullet proof vest, it is highly unlikely and I could care less if they outlawed them. They might have, I don't remember how that turned out? But let me keep my automatic weapons or you will have war on your hands.

Coating the bullet in Teflon does nothing to increase penetration. Some AP bullets are indeed coated in Teflon, but that is so you do not place as much wear on the barrel.

LOL, I looked it up and you are right. I learned something today.