Can someone explain why the assault weapons ban is a good thing?

[FreedomsTeeth]

I apologize if I am offending any fellow democrats on this board, but I'm having a terribly difficult time understanding why we want to ban weapons that our government has access to. I'm not worried about criminals using these types of weapons in crimes - the FBI already disproved that myth. What I'm more concerned about is the idea that we should be outgunned by our own government. Every government I can think of in history that has ever disarmed its people have, at some point, also committed genocide. On a similar note, I don't understand this new "anti-sniper rifle" legislation on the floor. The .50 BMG has historically never been any government's choice for a military sniper rifle. Our own military uses .308 bolt actions, and other militaries use similar rounds.

I realize it's unpopular to be a democrat and believe in the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment was put into place to acknowledge that the people were to have all of the power, including the military power to ensure their freedom - isn't that what our party is all about? The declaration of independence took issue with the concept that a country's military should be independent of, or more powerful than the people:

has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power..

Those who founded our country believed that the people should be the most powerful force in government. Many founding fathers believed that citizens must have equal access to whatever level of arms the state had, to prevent us from ever becoming a tyrrany. It was the citizenship's power that prevented Switzerland from being invaded by Germany during WW-II, and the confiscation of firearms from the citizens in Germany (preceeded by federal registration) that made the holocaust possible for Adolf Hitler. The purpose of the government is to defend the freedom of the people, not to define it. They are to be "guards for their future security", as the declaration puts it, and puts the responsibility of policing the government into the people's hands.

I'm not worried about that small 1% of criminals who use assault rifles to commit crimes. I'm more worried about a government that feels the need to outgun its own people. There are many enemies of the constitution within our own government, men and women who would like to take away our freedoms and turn us into a police state, like England, whom we fought to the death against only a few hundred years ago. Restricting arms has historically been the first step toward tyranny and all forms of brutality and abuse. Do we really want to go down this road and regress back to what we were before we had secured our freedom? None of us would suggest that our own law enforcement shouldn't have access to assault rifles, but where are they going to be when a gang of 30 men tries to initiate a home invasion at two in the morning? This happened just one city away from me, and it did not end with a magic call to 911 that fixed everything. It seems to me like in these times of higher gang-related crime, we ought to be putting more of these weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens. It works in Israel.

[thereismore]

1. Why are RPG's banned? Why can't I have a rocket launcher? Boohoo!

They are all "arms". Why stop at fully automatic weapons? Let's all stock up on mortars and shoulder-fired missiles, 50 caliber machine guns. Yay, we'll all be safer for it!

[Kali]

19. really!

oh, you are being sarcastic. I could have some fun times with that stuff.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Your desire for assault weapons is to defend yourself against the government?

Interesting. They have weapons more powerful than assault weapons. Do you want a tank? Jets? Smart bombs? Nukes?

I cannot think of a positive reason why everyday citizens need assault weapons. Not one.

[wyldwolf]

8. He's obviously a libertarian of the Neal Bootz wing

[HereSince1628]

3. You're looking in the wrong forum...there is one just for gun issues

plenty of discussion there....

[Spinzonner]

4. Which 2nd Amendment

The one that gun advocates interpret or the one that gun restriction/prohibition see.

[Midlodemocrat]

5. Why do you think it's bad? The only people I can think of that

would think an assault weapons ban is a bad thing live in the mountains and don't bathe.

[ATK]

14. perhaps you should learn what the ban actually did.

it limited magazine capacity in pistols, which meant spending a few bucks to get magazines to hold the same number of rounds.
it made it illegal to have ( gasp) a rifle with a folding but stock AND a flash suppressor ( even though you could buy a new barrel with a flash suppressor)

it was useless...and anyone who owns a gun affected by the ban, knows it.

[Kali]

24. hey!

It's called conserving resources. And we are in a 20 year drought.

[slackmaster]

6. In Before Move To Gun Dungeon

We already have one reply by someone who believes the AW ban covered fully automatic weapons.



ETA at present there is no official definition of the term "assault weapon" at the federal level. Each state that defines them has a somewhat different definition than all the others.

To me, the term is meaningless without specifics; whether or not I think assault weapons should be banned depends entirely on what you mean by assault weapon.

[wyldwolf]

7. you could ask the law enforcement officials who backed it

They were a little tired of being outgunned on the streets.

[AlinPA]

9. The government has jet planes, bombers, big bombs, etc and an assault weapon

will do little to defeat that power. I don't think your argument holds water.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Depends heavily on circumstances...

A couple of well employed semi auto rifles would have given the gun grabbers pause in NO.


Note that a semi auto rifle, is not really an assualt rifle even though the Brady Bunch and others insist it is.

[AlinPA]

38. No question on that, but if he was talking about defeating the Army, Navy, Air Force

and Marines with all the weaponry they have using assault weapons, its really foolish.

[primative1]

10. I do not support Gun Control ...

Except in cases where the subject is about absurd weaponry that no sportsman could possibly find a use for.

[Solo_in_MD]

16. Its not just about sporting arms...

its about defensive arms as well.

The AWBs were not just about AK-47s. They impact standard handguns as well, ones that are best suited to defense. The standard personal sidearm for the US is the Barretta 92 series. Under the vairious AWBs, you could not have the standard magazine for it since it held more that 10 rounds.

[Kali]

28. why do gun fans have to be limited to what they "need"?

That's like telling somebody "you can only have a two seater car, because you are single, you don't need a bigger vehicle" or "you don't need a super sound system when this single dashboard speaker will do."

Sure some things are excessive, even ridiculous but that choice is one of the freedoms perhaps better left to social pressure and education rather than criminalizing.

Why do gun owners have to be restricted by what is some other group or person's definition of what is "useful"?

[ATK]

18. you mean llike an M-4 chambered for a .308, like most deer rifles?

but because it has a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, folding stock and magazine that exceeds 20 rounds it some how more deadly than the deer rifle?

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Not sure you could chamber an M-4 for .303, but there are semi auto military style rifles that are

[ATK]

30. Rock River Arms, makes them.

dgpi

[Solo_in_MD]

34. True M-4 with interchangeable parts or a look alike?

[ATK]

40. civilian model. there's no 3 round burst and I think the miltiary uses the M-14

for that round.

[primative1]

26. Not to get to involved in this ...

But when would I need to hold 20 rounds? Me thinks our ideas of hunting differ ...

[ATK]

31. some people are reaaaaaly bad shots

would be my guess

[primative1]

37. Lol .. I think I know the guy ...

Thats why I am also not opposed to creating some system that requires demonstration of some competency with firearms (as long as its free)... too many stories around about people getting shot hanging out their laundry because some yahoo thought the flash was a whitetail; makes us all look bad IMO ....

[Solo_in_MD]

35. If firearms were only used for hunting, you might have a point.

[Egnever]

25. The 2nd amendment

is not about hunting.

In my opinion it was put there to ensure the citizens were able to protect themselves in case of a government run amok. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. If there ever comes a time when i need to fight my government i sure as hell dont want to have to do it with a hunting riffle. I never thought in the past that that would ever be a possiblilty but the last 6 years have made me question that.

[primative1]

29. I am familiar with the argument ...

I typicaly abstain from these conversations ... Both results could be ugly ... In the meantime, getting out in the woods is a great way to shake off stress and I dont see anyone infringing on that ... for now

[ATK]

11. the AWB was absolutely useless. It made some rifles look less scary

and forced people to find the common denominator between 15 and 10 so they'd know how many magazines they needed to carry X number of bullets.

but you didn't hear of anyone getting bayonetted on the street by some guy who had an M-4 that had a folding stock and was limited to a 20 round mag, did you?

[Solo_in_MD]

12. It wasn't a good thing

- neglible impact on criminal violence
- poorly defined
- Differs widely between states
- Based as much on appearance than on function

Lots of misunderstandings about it too.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Hey, you're right there on all the touchy-feely warm fuzzies today, huh?

By the way ... welcome to DU.

No doubt our fellow Democrats are glad you're here.

[Egnever]

15. Couldnt agree with you more

that is all

[William769]

17. There are only two types of people that are pissed about the ban on assault weapons.

Really bad hunters and hunters of people. Which category do you fall in?

[Egnever]

22. um yea ok

nice bait there but I call bullshit.

I dont own a gun havent since I was in my teens. I dont like them. However I find this legislation to be complete bullshit.

[Solo_in_MD]

23. Really, how about those who want to effectively defend themselves

the AWBs did not just ban AK-47s so be carefull how you respond

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Reducto ad absurdum.

It's often said that there's only two people who don't support the war in Iraq:

America haters, and terrorist lovers.

[slackmaster]

42. There are two kinds of people who supported the now-expired AW ban

People who really didn't understand what it was about, and gun-grabbing monkeys.

[benEzra]

47. Never mind that you're talking about the most popular target rifles in America...

There are only two types of people that are pissed about the ban on assault weapons.

Really bad hunters and hunters of people. Which category do you fall in?

Never mind that you're talking about the most popular target rifles in America, and NOT military weapons. But, of course, casting the issue in terms of ad hominems and irrelevant allusions to "hunting" is SO much more fun...

BTW, rifles are not a crime problem in the U.S. and never have been.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20)

All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides. You've been had.

[Cleita]

32. By your reasoning everyone should have a nuke silo in

their backyard if their government has them. However, the main reason for gun bans is to keep weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Licensing gun owners, like getting a driver's license, should be passed into law but the NRA keeps fighting it. This would reduce the supply of weapons on the black market, which are usually stolen guns anyway and would make it easier to track a stolen gun down. Also, do you really need an assault weapon to go hunting?

[-..__...]

46. For once...

I'm actually willing to make a compromise with the gun-grabbers (and for the record... I'm usually dead-set of making any sort of compromise with them).

I'd (we), be willing to surrender/give-up/relinquish/concede/etc, any right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, guided missiles, shoulder fired anti-tank weapons, Bio-Chem weapons... hell, I'll (we'll), even throw in anti-personnel mines and hand grenades if it'll make you guys happy. But! Only (and only), if you anti-gun Zealots give up this foolish scheme/notion/agenda to ban/prohibit/regulate the ownership of semi-automatic rifles, .50 BMG "sniper" rifles and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

See! Now what's so difficult about that?

Ohhh... and I (we), want the 1986 machine gun ban repealed too.

[Cleita]

48. I'm actually not an anti-gun zealot. I have owned guns in the past

although not now, and I'm not for taking gun ownership from responsible gun owners and users. However, I don't want anyone driving a car without a driver's license and car registration. I want similar legislation for gun ownership. I know that each area needs to set up their own rules. Rural gun ownership restrictions should differ from city ownership restrictions, but I don't care for the careless gun ownership we have today.

This is no different than the realization in society today that we need stricter automobile restrictions on seniors. I want the same for gun owners. Oh I am a senior and I know I am going to have to stop driving one day and I hope it will be before I kill a bunch of people stepping on the gas pedal instead of the brakes because I was tested before allowed to renew my license.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Why stop there?

Look I understand, I think most of us here understand, the 'original intent' argument of the 2nd. But it is at this point in time, in this day and age, ridiculous. Why stop at assault rifles?

If you are concerned about that huge standing army and its corrupting influence on the state, and you and I and all of us should be, then lets seriously go after that problem, and perhaps at the same time we can solve this 2nd amendment conundrum as well.

Imagine our nation without a huge standing army. What would it look like? Is switzerland the right model? Can we possibly withdraw from our imperial position in the world?

Meanwhile I suggest that I do want to make sure that known lunatics like the VT killer cannot just walk into a gunshop and buy a glok.

[NoPasaran]

36. It's very useful

For starting post and run flame threads.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. ..

Hahahahaha

You're exactly right

[NoPasaran]

41. Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam!

See ya in hell, freeper!

[TankLV]

43. I want NUKES! Everyone should be able to have Nukes, right?!

We ALL agree that would be ridiculuous.

It's just a matter of degree to what we should/would allow.

Only with the state of the country nowadays, I'm not so sure I'd be for limiting assault weapons...

If only the right wing crazies have weapons, how will we defend ourselves?

Of course, I have yet to own a single weapon...

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Man, this guy lasted a long time on DU, huh?

12 whole posts

[RamboLiberal]

45. The military is using the 50BMG as a sniper rifle

Major success followed in 1990, when the US Military purchased significant numbers of the M82A1 during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq. About 125 rifles were initially bought by the US Marine Corps, and orders from US Army and Air Force soon followed. The M82A1 is known by the US Military as the SASR — "Special Applications Scoped Rifle",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle

And IMHO the Assault Weapons Ban was a stupid, stupid law!

[The Magistrate]

49. Locking

The O.P. is no longer among us....