Assult Weapon Ban: what is wrong with it?

[usregimechange]

Opinions please, besides it will cost us votes.

[el_gato]

1. because

Politicians love unarmed peasants

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. not just assault weapons

guns kill people in my opinion we should try to limit their proliferation. also the right to bear arms is very vague.

everything costs us votes. marriage rights. weapons. welfare. the democratic needs to decide at what point we have compromised so much that we have to values left.

[MrBenchley]

3. Not a goddamn thing

Voters don't want these weapons on the market....

[slackmaster]

7. Voters don't want gay marriage either

Most people are idiots.

[CO Liberal]

9. And A Lot of Those Idiots....

...belong to the Nuts Ruining America.

[Columbia]

12. Wow

You mean a majority of the 53% of the American public belong to the NRA? Wow, they really are a 500-lb gorilla then. That's 160 million members!

[CO Liberal]

15. That's Not What I Meant At All

Please stop trying to read things into what I post. You'd be much better served reading what I DO say.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

20. If it weren't for distortion or deception

there'd be no RKBA arguments at all....

[leanings]

28. Very true

If it weren't for deception and distortion, we wouldn't have gun control, and there would be no need for RKBA arguments.

[MrBenchley]

29. It's the RKBA crowd that relies on deception and distortion

as we see here every damn day

[slackmaster]

14. So what?

:shrug:

[pnb]

63. And that relates to this conversation how?

Other than to just throw out a useless attack?

[Ready4Change]

8. Gun buyers vote too.

.

[MrBenchley]

31. So what?:

Not even a majority of gun owners buy this extremist "gun rights" crap.

[dixierat]

4. AWB

Do some research. In particular, the Federalists papers. They give some pretty good reasons why the general population should have as much firepower as the government.

[leanings]

5. It's entirely ineffective in reducing crime or harm.

And it's technically ridiculous to anyone who knows guns and shooting.

It deprives me and a whole hell of a lot of other gun owners of liberty for absolutely no valid reason.

And it sets a precedent for robbing the American people of the ability that the 2nd Amendment was orginally intended to confer; the means to overthrow the government.

That's the short version, anyway. Gun control is about control, not guns.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

65. The precedent for destroying the RKBA

Started with the National Firearms Act on 1934. Imagine a $200 tax on a $6 Sten?

Along with the NFA '34 came a halt in weapons advancement for 20 years until inflation caught up with the tax. Eugene Stoner designed what was to become the M-16 in the late 50's.

In 1986, the Gun Owner's Protection Act halted further production of machine guns except for the government.

Now people wonder why the US government has to contact a German company for it's newest issue rifle, the XM-8. They took away the ability for anyone in the US to develop anything new without outrageous licensing fees.

[slackmaster]

6. Irrational, unjustified restriction on peoples' choices

With no discernable offsetting benefit in public safety.

[billbuckhead]

11. It's so irrational almost every civilized nation in the world has it

If guns made people free, Iraq and Afghanistan would be the freest places in the world.

[Stoker]

36. If guns didn't make people free...

...there would be no United States of America.

Stoker

[jimsteuben]

46. Guns don't "make people free"

But they can enable a free people to resist tyranny. See _Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II_.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/swiss.htm

[iverglas]

70. I always wonder ...

... just how well the Swiss would have succeeded had any actual attempt been made by Axis powers to invade Switzerland ...

... and just how much of a role that handy dandy Swiss banking system actually played in the fact that it didn't ever have to repel any actual attempt to invade it ...

... you know ... the banking system the Nazis seemed so fond of squirreling stuff like Jewish assets away in ...

Ho hum.

"http://www.apfn.org/apfn/swiss.htm" -- wazzat, some kinda authoritative source for something?? I don't think it qualifies as a progressive source, but that's just me.

.

[jimsteuben]

75. excellent questions

>just how well the Swiss would have succeeded had any actual attempt been made by Axis powers to invade Switzerland

We know from captured German documents that they wanted to invade Switzerland. We know that several times during the war Hitler ordered his generals to devise plans for such an invasion and occupation. Each time the generals reported that in the end the Reich would have "won," but would have suffered extremely high casualties. By raising the cost to an unacceptably high level, the Swiss policy of armed neutrality and no-surrender succeeded in preventing a German invasion.

>and just how much of a role that handy dandy Swiss banking system actually played in the fact that it didn't ever have to repel any actual attempt to invade it

Actually, the German's had an active covert plan to destabilize Switzerland using fifth column operatives. During WWI the Swiss caught some 400 Nazi spies and saboteurs (some German, soem Swiss). They were either packed off to prison or lined up in front of a firing squad.

Also, the Swiss airforce actually did repel several incursions by the German Luftwaffe, and shot down about a dozen enemy planes.

As far as the Swiss banking system goes, you do know that that was an era in which bankers were far less likely to ask questions about the source of their customers' earnings, right? Nothing peculiar to Swtizerland here. And yes, Switzerland did continue to trade with the Axis powers. (So did Sweden.) What choice did they really have?

>http://www.apfn.org/apfn/swiss.htm -- wazzat, some kinda authoritative source for something??

I read the review and also the book. Vin gave an accurate review of Halbrook's book.

>I don't think it qualifies as a progressive source, but that's just me

It's just you.

[MrBenchley]

76. It's not just Iverglas

Suprynowicz is a far right wing screwloose...

And while we're on the subject of the Swiss Air force..

"The Swiss Air Force could do nothing against misdirected formations as large as 100 bombers, but the Swiss did take action regarding single planes. As these were usually cripples searching asylum, American officers resented the Swiss attacks. At the close of May, under prodding from the War Department, Hull condemned a Swiss attack of 13 April on a damaged U.S. bomber. Six officers and crewmen had been killed despite their answering to Swiss rockets with signal flares and by lowering their landing gear. "

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/helmreich.html

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

79. Do you know that right wing cesspools

seem to be the only sites most RKBA "enthusiasts" ever read?

But as it happens, those are where this imbecile Suprynowicz publishes his ignorant and dishonest rants.

[jimsteuben]

81. wrong again, Mr.B

Vin publishes them in in the Las Vegas Review Journal. Other people pick them up and post them on their websites.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columnists/suprynowicz.html

[MrBenchley]

82. Too too funny...

A sampling of the opinion from this rag....

"JOHN BRUMMETT: The titan John Kerry never was
John Kerry's nomination happened so quickly and on such uncertain and scant reasoning that Democrats may come down in a few days or weeks with a touch of buyer's remorse. "

"NEVADA VIEWS: Nuke shipments are safe
In an absence of complete information, it has proven easy for the opponents of the Yucca Mountain repository to raise fears about the transportation of used commercial nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the site. "

"THOMAS MITCHELL: Against the law to watch
I would like to propose an ordinance. Said ordinance would authorize any citizen to arrest and detain any elected official who, in his or her legislative capacity, knowingly enacts an ordinance or law that is constitutionally suspect. "

[iverglas]

84. and what

Suprynowicz is a far right wing screwloose...
Did you know that ad hominem is a sign of intellectual laziness?

... what, that is, do you call "refusing to acknowledge the nose on your face", if I may be so bold as to ask?

http://sierratimes.com/archive/vin/2001/jan/edvs011801.htm

Forces of bureaucratic tyranny seek to purge Bush nominees
by Vin Suprynowicz - Published: 01.18.01

But meantime, score one in the ongoing campaign to deprive Mr. Bush of any advisers or administrators who actively promote even remotely free-market Republican ideals. Next on the intended hit list, obviously, is attorney general nominee John Ashcroft, already subject to prominent "balanced" personality profiles in America's Pravda and Izvestia, the New York Times and The Washington Post, stressing his links to "the Christian Right" in language so thinly veiled one could almost see the red light flashing above the page: "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger: Out-of-Touch Right-Wing Wacko."

When Democrats win the White House, no one pretends to be "shocked, shocked" to see radical left-wing socialists line up cheek to jowl to be put in charge of each respective bureaucratic chow line.

Now, I'm just a furriner, and I could be wrong ... but I thought Ashcroft WAS an out-of-touch right-wing wacko, or words to that effect ... and that those radical left-wing socialists were, like, the ones that people hereabouts elect Democrats to appoint. (And I do wish he'd bothered to name one of them.)

These two apparent paragons in the RKBA ranks -- Sprynowicz and Judicial watch -- are just a little fond of Ashcroft, just for starters, for my taste. Anybody else?

.

[MrBenchley]

85. Evidently we are never supposed to take notice

that these right wing pieces of shit are right wing pieces of shit.

[iverglas]

83. let's all be like the Swiss in WWII

Just count me out, eh?

Nazis just weren't the only ones not welcome in Switzerland at the time.

http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-99/12-11-99/a03wn020.htm

The historians said Switzerland did save 21,000 Jews, including many who sneaked into the country and were allowed to remain. More than 24,000 refugees who reached Switzerland were sent back. It is impossible to tell how many did not try to leave Nazi-controlled territory because they heard of Switzerland's policies or were refused visas.

It really ain't about what you've got. It's about what you do with it. I don't happen to see shooting down planes and people who have just been doing the job of protecting you against fascism and fascists, which you couldn't do yourself (per the admissions in the stuff quoted) and they're undeniably doing for you, as a "good thing", to quote Martha.

Just another example of the stupidity of the idea that guns can stop evil. Guns don't stop evil; people stop evil.

And if I may be forgiven for saying so, the dismissal of the usefulness of the Swiss banking system to the Nazis was just a tad disingenuous for me.

.

[jimsteuben]

86. the facts

The United States and the other democracies all had deplorable policies regarding refugees during WWII. The US was turning back boatloads of Jewish refugees. In July 1940 the US State Department directed its consuls not to issue visitors' or transit visas unless the person had an exit permit from his home country. An American edict of 1941 made it all but impossible for refugees with relatives in the Reich to come to the US. Between March 1941 and August 1942 only 309 refugee children were admitted into the US.

Switzerland pleaded with the US for an increase in foreign trade so that the beleaguered nation could afford to admit more refugees. By the end of 1944, some 27,000 Jewish and 20,000 other refugees were safe in Switzerland. During the entire war, 400,000 refugees and emigrants came to Switzerland, and one billion Swiss francs were spent on related assistance. In proportion to her population, Switzerland gave asylum to more refugees than any other country.

>I don't happen to see shooting down planes and people who have just been doing the job of protecting you against fascism and fascists

Oh please. The Allies did not defend Switzerland from fascism. On occasion Allied bombers would violate Swiss airspace by flying over to bomb targets in Italy, sometimes even getting mixed up and accidentally bombing Swiss towns. No wonder the Swiss airforce would mobilize to protect Swiss neutrality, even shooting down a couple of Allied bombers, but mostly they chased off the Allied planes whereas they would directly engage the Axis planes.

>Just another example of the stupidity of the idea that guns can stop evil.

Who are you arguing with? No one makes the argument that "guns can stop evil." They are just wood and metal.

The Swiss remained free because they had the wherewithal *and* the will to resist. Had they relied on the Allies for defense against fascism, they would have ended up in the same boat as Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.

>And if I may be forgiven for saying so, the dismissal of the usefulness of the Swiss banking system to the Nazis was just a tad disingenuous for me.

Go re-read my words. I didn't dismiss its usefulness to the Germans or to anyone else. You wondered what role the Swiss banking system played in preventing a German invasion. I cited evidence indicating that it was not a factor. Had the Hitler believed that the Wehrmacht would have overrun Switzerland as easily as it had overrun France, Poland, and their other opponents, they would have done so.

[iverglas]

87. and I'm still trying to figure out

what any of this has to do with "arming the left" in the US. Maybe somebody who's actually ON THE LEFT would like to come by and comment. Shall we invite some of the more, uh, average folks on DU to do that?

I do have to say that I like the quote that appears on your American Patriot Friends Network discussion board site:

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my people are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive..., when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and its government." Thomas Paine

Whoa. I haven't noticed any country in the world saying any of *that* lately. No beggars in the street, no impoverished old people, no ignorant people -- not in the USA? Freedom from want, freedom from fear; peace, justice, food and shelter; human security. Some of your founders & framers did seem to give a damn about all that, after all. How come nobody ever quotes *those* bits around here??

And yet there's just so much boasting of that constitution goes on.

http://www.apfn.org/

"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."

And of course against anybody trying to get what's mine ... all those aged and distressed and ignorant that I don't notice your APFN ... or much of anybody in this vicinity ... ever saying much about.

Anyhow, what *does* Switzerland have to do with it?

What does a nation of men (it only took until 1971 for women to get the vote in Switzerland; wonder when they'll get govt. guns?) armed with rifles (that could *not* have stood up to an actual invasion anyway, if it had had to try, gimme a break -- and who on earth suggested that they should have "relied on the Allies for their defence? false dichotomy, anyone?) have to do with "the left" buying guns to take on the US government?

And who the hell would actually want to take the Swiss as their example for anything anyway? A better illustration of "I'm all right, Jack" has surely seldom been seen in this world.


.

[jimsteuben]

90. what's Switzerland got to do with it?

>and I'm still trying to figure out what any of this has to do with "arming the left" in the US.

That's a different thread, iverglas.

>on your American Patriot Friends Network discussion board site:

Actually I have not looked at that site aside from Vin's accurate review of Halbrook's book.

And yet there's just so much boasting of that constitution goes on.
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, ..."

Quoting Abraham Lincoln? What dastardly trick will those rightwingers think up next?

>Anyhow, what *does* Switzerland have to do with it?

What does Switzerland have to do with "Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States;" a country with a tradition of "freedom, equality, justice"? Quite a lot, actually. They have the oldest constitutional republic in Europe.

>it only took until 1971 for women to get the vote in Switzerland; wonder when they'll get govt. guns?

Well why not ask this woman? http://tinyurl.com/3yj6l

>a nation of men armed with rifles (that could *not* have stood up to an actual invasion anyway, if it had had to try, gimme a break)

Hitler's generals differed with you, hence there was no invasion. The Swiss could and would have stood up to a Nazi invasion enough to exact a price that was too high for the agressors. Kinda like a bear eating a porcupine. Possible, but very painful. Hey, it worked.

>And who the hell would actually want to take the Swiss as their example for anything anyway?

Third highest per capita income in the world. Non-interventionist foreign policy, consequently they don't tend to worry very much about terrorists flying jetliners into their buildings. Extremely low crime rates. Personal freedom. Rule of law. Democratic government. Rational approach to the problem of drug abuse in that heroin addicts can get prescriptions, thereby cutting out the black market.

Aside from all that peace, prosperity, and security, those Swiss have it really rough, the poor dumb bastards. ;)

[MrBenchley]

91. You dragged the Swiss in, jim

Just like you dragged that right wing cesspool American Patriot Friends Network in.

[MrBenchley]

77. The American Patriot Friends Network--why is it that

the RKBA crowd always seems to go swimming in these far right wing cesspools?

"American Patriot Friends Network a/k/a American Patriot Fax Network was founded Feb. 21, 1993. We started with faxing daily reports from the Weaver-Harris trials. Then on Feb. 28 1993, The BATF launched Operation Showtime - "The Siege on the Branch Davidians". From this point, it's been the Death of Vince Foster, the Oklahoma Bombing, TWA-800, The Train Deaths, Bio-War, on and on."

http://www.apfn.org/

On and on is right....

[MrBenchley]

80. It's a small world, after all...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz-arch.html

[dpt223]

10. re: Assult Weapon Ban: what is wrong with it

assault weapons are no more deadly than any other type of gun

[billbuckhead]

13. "41 worshippers shot in Pakistan"..I'm sure they used "any" gun

41 worshippers shot in Pakistan

Associated Press
Tuesday March 2, 2004

Armed men opened fire on Shia Muslim worshippers during a religious procession in Quetta in south-west Pakistan today, killing at least 41 people, authorities said.

More than 150 others were injured in the attack, which prompted some Shia Muslims to riot, setting on fire a Sunni Muslim mosque, a television network office and several shops.

---------------------snip======================

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,1160465,00.html >

I wonder if the guns used would be banned under the AWB? It could happen here and probably will if these small bore WMD's aren't kept under control.

[slackmaster]

16. Very unlikely any assault weapons were used

I'd bet they used selective-fire Kalashnikovs.

[dpt223]

17. i agree

i'd bet that most people don't know the difference.

[slackmaster]

19. People prove every day that they don't know the difference

Worse, a lot of them don't even care.

[Columbia]

21. It makes me sad

To see the amount of willful ignorance on DU (and the entire country for that matter) when it comes to this subject. What happened to being well-informed and educated before taking a side on an issue?

[FeebMaster]

22. Too much work (nt)

...

[MrBenchley]

25. It makes me even sadder to see the willful dishonesty

of those trying to pimp for the gun lobby.

[Columbia]

32. You don't seem to be immune from the same

For example, your false, unsubstantiated statement about the NRA attempting to repeal background checks.

[MrBenchley]

37. Who are you trying to kid?

The NRA has attempted to repeal background checks, and continues to do all they can to tear them down.

[slackmaster]

38. Not even close to true

n/t

[Columbia]

39. Substantiate your claim

[MrBenchley]

40. Been there, done that

[Columbia]

41. "Been there, done that" doesn't count if you've never done it

[MrBenchley]

42. But it does, since I have

so go snivel about it to somebody else.

[Columbia]

43. If you had, it'd be quite easy to just post your substantiation

However, if you can't, it's obvious it's just another misstatement.

[MrBenchley]

44. And I did

which didn't keep you from pretending I didn't. Just as you're here trying to pretend the NRA supports backgrround checks, which is absurd and not true.

[Columbia]

45. Keeping saying you did

And one day maybe you'll even believe it yourself.

[FatSlob]

53. CITE

From a legitimate source, if you can.

[MissMarple]

69. Too little information guided by too much passion.

IMHO. From both sides. It's like abortion, gay marriage, school vouchers, etc... There is just too much political hay to be made.

[slackmaster]

74. Those hot-button issues usually turn out to be losers

Regardless of which side you take.

The reason they're hot buttons is that they carry a lot of emotional baggage PLUS the voters are split close to 50-50 in some cases. By taking a firm side you immediately alienate everyone who disagrees with you. That leaves the remainder for you to piss off one way or another. The result is you end up with less than a majority.

[leanings]

30. Yep, there's the difference between us and Pakistan:

thank God we've got Sarah Brady.

[pnb]

62. OK

And people who would be willing to inflict that type of carnage would let a silly ban stop them from getting an assault weapon or carrying out their plan, if indeed an assault weapon was even used here?

That's the whole point of what people are saying here. The reasons people give for the ban would barely be effected by it. What's the point then other to restrict the freedoms of the rest of us?

[iverglas]

89. does someone actually think

And people who would be willing to inflict
that type of carnage would let a silly ban
stop them from getting an assault weapon or
carrying out their plan, if indeed an assault
weapon was even used here?

... think that a "ban" means a stone tablet somewhere that says "thou shalt not possess assault weapons"??

If it were, then yuppers, it would be about as effective in stopping people from getting assault weapons as speeding laws ("thou shalt not speed") are in stopping people from speeding. It would be very silly indeed.

If we truly wanted to be *sure* that nobody drove over 100 km/h, we'd ban the selling of cars that go over 100 km/h. And then how would anybody do it? (Oh yeah, the real speed nuts would modify their cars ...)

It isn't the ban that stops people from getting an assault weapon; it's making it not possible to get an assault weapon that stops them from getting an assault weapon. I'd'a thought, and I'd'a thought obvious, anyhow.

.

[pnb]

101. That's basically what the poster implied...

...because it is naive to think that we can do ANYTHING to make it impossible, or likely even difficult, to get any weapon that they want.

So to me, people who make comments like the poster I responded to are in essence saying "thou shalt not speed" as you put it. I say this because it is not often addressed HOW the ban in question here may have prevented anything.

[RamboLiberal]

23. IMHO it was not a well done law

Tell me how banning a rifle which has two of these features made us any safer? I can go with the Bayonet Mount and Grenade Launcher - civilians don't need those. And I'd also give you the Folding or telescoping stock since this would make the weapon easy to conceal. But note you could still have that if you didn't have the other features.

I can go with the quantity of ammo the magazine can hold. Again civilians don't need hi-cap magazines, but by allowing grandfathered hi-caps to be legal it really did nothing but drive up the price of legal hi-caps. You can still find those in abundance.

Heck you can legally buy one of the Secret Service's worst nightmares. A 50-cal rifle.

Rifles:

Any semiautomatic rifle made after 9/13/94, which can accept a detachable magazine and which has two or more of the following characteristics is a banned AW:

Folding or telescoping stock,
Pistol grip which protrudes conspicuously below the action of the gun,
Bayonet mount,
Flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
Grenade launcher.

The law mostly covers cosmetic differences. I still read crime reports in the newspaper committed with AK-47's.

These are legal:





These are banned unless you can prove they were built prior to 1994:

[dpt223]

24. i agree

The term assualt weapon was defined completely arbitrarily.

Having a pistol grip or collapsible stock doen't make a weapon more deadly.

[FeebMaster]

26. All of the federal gun laws are

defined completely arbitrarily.

How did they come up with an overall minimum length of 26" for rifles and shotguns?

How did they come up with a minimum barrel length of 16" for rifles and 18" for shotguns?

How did they come up with all the dimensions on imports in the GCA?

How did they come up with a 10 round limit on magazines?

[dpt223]

27. true

nt

[Festivito]

33. If Republicans destroy America, I might like to own one.

If they are not afraid of us, then they will make us afraid of them.

[MrBenchley]

35. All it takes is blood money to own a Republican

[MrSandman]

34. First...

they outlawed flash suppressors...I had no flash suppressor, so I said nothing.
Then they came for bayonet lugs, but...
...
...
When they came for bolt rifles, there were no more gun owners to speak up.

[jimsteuben]

47. Of course they banned bayonet lugs

Congress had to *do something* to protect us from all those drive-by bayonetings.

Don't you remember?

And all those people killed by grenade launchers? Hell, it's still legal to own a "grenade launcher," and still legal to have one on your semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine if that is the only ugly feature on the rifle.

As far as "grenade launchers" go, I was born with two of them, one on each side of my body.

[Tannhauser]

48. Kerry's stats on Cop deaths by assault weapons

Kerry's website quotes stat that says that 1 in 9 cops killed in the U.S. are killed with assault weapons.

Does anyone know where this stat came from?

Thanks.

[slackmaster]

49. Got a link? Violence Policy Center says 1 in 5

So obviously they can't both be right. They MIGHT even both be wrong.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0305officer.htm

If you look at the details, most of the shootings detailed by the VPC were done with something other than an "assault weapon" as defined by federal law, e.g. post-ban versions, Ruger Mini-14s, SKSs, and other items that are not covered by the AWB.

[RoeBear]

50. Oooh! Oooh! I know! Pick me!

(For the humor impaired that is thin air)

[slackmaster]

51. Thank you for NOT posting a picture of where I think it came from

You have maintained the thin veil of dignity that covers this forum.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

54. Everybody contain their surprise.....

Go to:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/police.html

Click on
"Fighting to Reauthorize and Strengthen the Assault Weapons Ban" and what do we see….

"John Kerry stood up to the gun lobby to pass the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill. This assault weapons law is soon set to expire under George W. Bush. We need a President who will fight to keep assault weapons off our streets and out of our communities. John Kerry has the courage to stand up to the NRA, one of the most powerful special interests in the country, which is fighting tooth and nail against reasonable gun safety protections and against renewal of the assault weapon ban. One in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty were killed with assault weapons.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

56. You have to use a non-standard definition of "assault weapon"

To come up with the 1 in 5 figure. That's what the VPC did.

Whether or not you agree with their definition is a good subject for debate.

[idadem]

61. Ban ALL semi-autos...

...so that law enforcement officers will never be killed by them.

[slackmaster]

67. So you'd prefer them to be killed with other weapons?

Please explain your logic.

[iverglas]

88. a little background info is always useful

'Course, you can't get it from the profile now.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=13464

[slackmaster]

92. I read that thread already

Do you have a point to make, iverglas?

[iverglas]

93. uh, yeah

A point. That addressing someone who has made a comment that was obviously made for, um, less than sincere motives, as if one took, or someone oughta take, the comment seriously, is, er, kinda, ah, devoid of a point.

I mean, given that the same comment was made 4 times in 4 threads without further elucidation, and followed on some earlier comments that kinda, uh, just didn't jibe with the sentiment apparently being expressed, and all. And given that little bitty post count ... .

I've never felt the urge to try to make my interlocutors look stupid and/or evil by pretending to be one of them and saying dumb shit, myself, but that might just be me.

.

[MrBenchley]

94. But then

if the RKBA cause wasn't rotten from stem to stern, its adherents wouldn't have to stoop to such tactics.

[iverglas]

95. and of course

There's always the point that responding to someone who says "don't do X" by saying "so, you'd prefer to do Y?" --

So you'd prefer them to be killed with other weapons?

-- is, also, kinda, um, pointless. (I mean, all that the person has to say is "no", although s/he doesn't even have to say that, since nothing s/he has ever said suggests that s/he *does* prefer to do Y.) I just always do assume there must be some point to the things people say; it would be kinda disrespectful to assume that they're just babbling pointlessly. Here, I'm seeing the creation of a false dichotomy, and I just have to assume there is some reason why someone would do such a blatantly illogical thing.

If I say "ban the sale of foie gras", is it really reasonable to say to me, "So you'd prefer people to starve to death?" or "so you'd prefer geese to die of tuberculosis?"? There, I thought you'd get that point.

If you ever do catch me engaging in such, er, sloppy thinking, do please point it out.

.

[slackmaster]

96. Incorrect analogy

If I say "ban the sale of foie gras", is it really reasonable to say to me, "So you'd prefer people to starve to death?" or "so you'd prefer geese to die of tuberculosis?"?

My reply would be more along the lines "So, you'd prefer people who want to eat something based on liver to eat liverwurst?"

[iverglas]

97. good one

*MY* reply, however, would not, er, "assume" that the person I was talking to wanted whatever I happened to dream up and imply that it was reasonable to think s/he wanted, simply because s/he didn't want something else.

In the case in point, who knows, I might think that people should not eat liver-based products, for whatever reason I might have -- and think that banning foie gras might make it likely that fewer people would then eat liver-based products, since they would be scarcer and the ones that were available would not be to their tastes.

Kinda like -- hold on to your hat, now -- someone who advocated banning assault weapons might think it would be likely that fewer people would then kill other people, since the other means available to them would not be suitable.

Some people who eat foie gras would not want to eat liver 'n onions, I'll bet, given the different characteristics of the products. On the other hand, if they *did* want to eat other liver-based products, and eat just as many of them, banning foie gras would increase the demand without increasing the supply and some liver-based product-eating would not occur. So there we'd go: net reduction in liver-eating; just what I was trying to accomplish when I suggested banning foie gras as a particularly egregious instance of liver-eating.

Some people who use an assault weapon to commit homicide might not be able to commit the homicide with a shotgun, or a slingshot, given the different charateristics of the weapons. And, more generally speaking, reducing the overall supply of weapons might have the same effect as reducing the overall supply of liver-based products: fewer homicides. Just what we were trying to accomplish when we suggested banning assault weapons, perhaps.

So no, it just ain't reasonable to respond by saying "so, you want to _________" in ANY instance where the proposition being advanced is not the only alternative to, or the necessary result of, the one being responded to.

Someone who wants to ban foie gras might indeed be wanting to increase the demand for liverwurst, for his/her own nefarious reasons. But s/he might simply be trying to reduce the harm caused to geese, and not give a shit what people ate instead of foie gras. Or s/he might be wanting to reduce the eating of liver-based products overall, perhaps for public health reasons, and regard foie gras as a good and effective starting point.

Or s/he might just be trying to discredit the people who are engaged in more sophisticated ways of trying to protect geese from misery, a rather evidently good objective in itself, or of reducing the eating of liver-based products.

I suppose it can be hard to tell sometimes ... but in either event, I'm just not seeing the point in ascribing some belief to someone who makes a statement, that the statement does not imply.

.

[slackmaster]

98. Thank you for presenting a theory that's empirically testable

Kinda like -- hold on to your hat, now -- someone who advocated banning assault weapons might think it would be likely that fewer people would then kill other people, since the other means available to them would not be suitable.

That's the heart of the AW issue as far as I'm concerned. If someone can present real evidence, a causal link, that banning AWs reduces the rate at which unjustifiable homicides occur, then I'll be a cheerleader for banning AWs.

The rest of the discussion is emotional hooey.

[iverglas]

99. as long as we're talking empiricalese

If someone can present real evidence, a causal link, that banning AWs reduces the rate at which unjustifiable homicides occur, then I'll be a cheerleader for banning AWs.

If anyone can present evidence that widespread possession of those or any other firearms reduces any harm more than it produces any other harm, hey, I'll be a cheerleader for an assault weapon in every pot.

Remember, we're talking in "empirical" here. Not constitutionalese, not naturallawese. Just plain what is and what ain't.

Sauce for goose being sauce for gander and all that.

.

[slackmaster]

100. What would your position be if AWs have zero effect on crime or safety?

No suppressive effect on crime, no inherent danger to society? I'm talking null hypothesis here.

I ask because based on available evidence that appears to be the case.

[jimsteuben]

102. widespread possession of guns

"If anyone can present evidence that widespread possession of those or any other firearms reduces any harm more than it produces any other harm, hey, I'll be a cheerleader for an assault weapon in every pot."

A gun is only wood and metal, the possession of which neither protects you nor puts you at added risk. Guns do not cause crime or violence. A gun is not an agent, like a chemical or a microbe, that acts on the owner, leading him to commit crimes that he would not otherwise commit.

Having said that, the best research shows that there is no consistent correlation between gun laws or gun ownership rates and high murder or suicide or crime rates across a broad spectrum of nations and cultures.

Suggested reading: _Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control_ by Jeff Snyder (Accurate Press: 2001).
_Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control_ by Kleck and Kates (Prometheus Press: 2001).

[MrBenchley]

107. It's a Small World After All.....

Funny how the RKBA crowd seems to enjoy diving into the scummiest right wing cesspools.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro2.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-snyder042202.asp

"Jeff Snyder is the author of the Cato Institute study, "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense and the Right to Carry a Handgun," and the new book, Nation of Cowards — Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control."

[pnb]

64. Here's what'll happen...

More weapons will be considered assault rifles but there will be no reduction in crime. But because more weapons have this designation, this number will change to 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 and people will cry for even MORE laws...laws that will still accomplish nothing.

[MrBenchley]

68. Sez you

[slackmaster]

73. pnb's post accurately describes what happened in California

Sez me.

[iverglas]

71. oh ... I thought you meant

... that I should contain my surprise at seeing a disingenuously innocent, and strangely misinformed, question being asked in J/PS.

Oh! You did?!

Where's that chopping-instrument-adult-male when you need him?? Or ... is that a silly question?

.

[MrBenchley]

72. You should also contain your surprise

at the Democrat-bashing that followed.

Amazing how the RKBA crowd roll in their bad habits like a dog in his breakfast...

[beevul]

57. Heres whats wrong with it...

besides everything else already mentioned.


It expires 4 days too early. It SHOULD be expiring on september 17th instead of the 13th, cuz the 17th is my birthday, as well as Constitution day. :party: :evilgrin:

[FeebMaster]

58. Ahh but now your family and friends

will have the time to buy you gifts.

[beevul]

59. True, but...

I have no need of any AW type guns. If I got one for a gift, I wouldn't complain, but it sure wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my list, or even on it for that matter.

Filling in some missing godzilla movie titles in DVD format though, is a different matter all together. <grins>

[slackmaster]

60. None of my "AW type guns" were AWs when I bought them

They magically turned into "AWs" when the California state legislature defined them as such.

[brothermak]

66. Happy Birthday

To one of us hopefully. Sept. 13th here :party:
~BM

[name not needed]

103. It stops the wrong people

From owning guns. If you are a law abiding, sane nonviolent citizen with no record of violent crime and are not a risk factor, there is no reason you should not be able to own an assault rifle. We have to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the criminally insane.

[FeebMaster]

104. Good luck with that.

"We have to keep guns out of violent criminals and the criminally insane."

[name not needed]

105. i fixed it. happy?

[FeebMaster]

106. I wasn't criticizing your grammar or spelling.

I'm saying that attempting to keep weapons out of the hands of violent criminals and the criminally insane is an exercise in futility.

[Withergyld]

108. It is Unconstitutional

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

109. No, it is not....

as has been shown on these pages at least half a dozen times.....

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a 1990 New Jersey law that banned assault weapons.
Those challenging the law included a group called the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, two firearms manufacturers, a licensed dealer and individual firearm owners.
They argued the ban was unconstitutionally vague and violated their constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal protection.
A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court upheld the law. Violators of the ban face between three and five years in prison. "

http://www.rense.com/general17/supremecourtrejects.htm

By the way, with...why do you suppose the glocksuckers challenging the ban didn't cite the Second Amendment....do you suppose they FORGOT there was a Second Amendment?

 

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.