Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
FreedomsTeeth Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:25 AM
Original message
Can someone explain why the assault weapons ban is a good thing?
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
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! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. really!
oh, you are being sarcastic. I could have some fun times with that stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. He's obviously a libertarian of the Neal Bootz wing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. You're looking in the wrong forum...there is one just for gun issues
plenty of discussion there....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Which 2nd Amendment

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
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.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ATK Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. hey!
It's called conserving resources. And we are in a 20 year drought. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. In Before Move To Gun Dungeon
Edited on Mon May-14-07 11:36 AM by slackmaster
We already have one reply by someone who believes the AW ban covered fully automatic weapons.

:popcorn:

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. you could ask the law enforcement officials who backed it
They were a little tired of being outgunned on the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
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"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ATK Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Not sure you could chamber an M-4 for .303, but there are semi auto military style rifles that are
Edited on Mon May-14-07 11:49 AM by Solo_in_MD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ATK Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Rock River Arms, makes them.
dgpi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. True M-4 with interchangeable parts or a look alike?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ATK Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. civilian model. there's no 3 round burst and I think the miltiary uses the M-14
for that round.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. Not to get to involved in this ...
But when would I need to hold 20 rounds? Me thinks our ideas of hunting differ ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ATK Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. some people are reaaaaaly bad shots
would be my guess
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #31
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 ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. If firearms were only used for hunting, you might have a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ATK Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
15. Couldnt agree with you more
that is all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
17. There are only two types of people that are pissed about the ban on assault weapons.
Edited on Mon May-14-07 11:47 AM by William769
Really bad hunters and hunters of people. Which category do you fall in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #17
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.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. For once...
Edited on Mon May-14-07 05:56 PM by D__S
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #46
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
36. It's very useful
For starting post and run flame threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. ..
:spray:

Hahahahaha

You're exactly right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
41. Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam!
See ya in hell, freeper!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
44. Man, this guy lasted a long time on DU, huh?
12 whole posts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
49. Locking
The O.P. is no longer among us....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC