That Pesky Assault Rifle Ban

[rDigital]

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

It didn't ban semi-autos. It didn't ban detachable magazines. It didn't bad existing "high capacity" magazines. It didn't ban ANY caliber of ammunition. It didn't even ban the guns that look scary like it promised to. It would not have prevented the Colorado theater shooting, because it sure as hell didn't stop the Columbine School shooters.

Get educated, don't let other people do your thinking for you.

For the most part it banned:
Bayonet lugs
Flash hiders
Barrel Shrouds
Adjustable or folding stocks
Grenade launcher mounts.

None of those things effect the function of the guns. It's cosmetic. They still shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. They can still be reloaded in less than 2 seconds.

If you want to ban guns, by all means go for the gold and try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Toying around with banning cosmetic features is absolutely banal.

Think for yourself and question authority.

[shadowrider]

1. Dude, scary rifles that have a shoulder thing that goes up

are way SCARY and need to be banned, because they're scary, and stuff

[gejohnston]

2. and they fire those

heat seeking bullets

[braddy]

3. Isn't bayonet death #3 in U.S death statistics? Or is that M203 launched grenades?

[rDigital]

4. Ummm.....no....

Bayonets are #2, have unlimited ammunition without having to reload and are completely silent. You're thinking of the shoulder thing "that goes up", that's # 1.
[IMG][/IMG]

[leveymg]

78. Who won the Alien vs Predator bout, anyway?

Guess we'll have to ban the laser gun Schwartzeneger asked for in Terminator 1, as well.

The Terminator: (picking up guns) The 12-gauge auto-loader.
Pawn Shop Clerk: That's Italian. You can go pump or auto.
(Hands the Terminator the pump action shotgun)
The Terminator: The .45 long slide, with laser sighting.
Pawn Shop Clerk: (Hands the Terminator a .45) These are brand new; we just got them in. That's a good gun. Just touch the trigger, the beam comes on and you put the red dot where you want the bullet to go. You can't miss. Anything else?
The Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
Pawn Shop Clerk: Hey, just what you see, pal!
The Terminator: (Looks around) The Uzi nine millimeter.
Pawn Shop Clerk: You know your weapons, buddy. Any one of these is ideal for home defense. So uh, which will it be?
The Terminator: (Pointing the 12-guage shotgun towards the door) All.
Pawn Shop Clerk: I may close early today. There's a 15-day wait on the hand guns but the rifles you can take right now.
(Takes out forms)
Pawn Shop Clerk: And you have to fill these out too.
(Sees the terminator load his 12-gage shotgun)
Pawn Shop Clerk: You can't do that.
The Terminator: Wrong!
(the Terminator shoots the clerk)

[rDigital]

83. One on one, the predator always wins.

[leveymg]

93. Not against Schwartzenegger, if I recall.

And, even the T-800 chassis, while it takes a lot of abuse, melts down in the end, like Wall Street. These things seem to lose their power to terrorize us, after a while.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. IMHO...

there's nothing as scary as that Kristanna Loken robot.

[leveymg]

104. If looks could kill . . . she wins hands-down.

The females of the species are always the deadliest.

[Ya Basta]

5. Black markets and supply/demand economics 101

It is an established fact where there is a demand there will be a supplier. Whether it be a sanctioned supplier who adheres to safety standards, performs background checks, pays taxes and who creates jobs which also pays taxes. Or whether it be a black market supplier. The fact is there will be a supplier. I myself prefer the former rather than the latter.

[Hoyt]

7. Maybe so, until we change society's view of those who covet and carry lethal weapons.

[Ya Basta]

12. Does that include the police and military?

Also isn't that an arrogant philosophy of you must live your life the way "I" decide?

[Hoyt]

13. Why does every newbee gun lover ask that same stupid question?

[Ya Basta]

16. Maybe because its a relevant question in response to your ridiculous statement.

And why does every gun 'hater' ignore reality?

[PavePusher]

39. Probably because you never answer it. n/t

[rDigital]

47. We've all read 'Rules for Radicals' and ridicule isn't an answer on DU.

This question deserves an answer. You don't want to answer it because the truth deflates your unfounded opinions. Ad-Hominem attacks show that your argument is found wanting or does not exist.

Your credibility, or lack thereof, is at stake. No straw men, no begging the question, no true Scotsman.

Answer please.

[Hoyt]

48. Simple, police, etc., have close government oversight and are regulated better than gun crowd.

Besides, would you go to work everyday UNARMED knowing you might face the next Zimmerman, Holmes, Stawicki, Loughner. I think you would have considered them fine law-abiding gun cultist, right up till they opened fire.

[Glaug-Eldare]

49. Please, tell me more of my opinions!

It's so much easier than coming up with my own

[Hoyt]

50. Please correct me where I am wrong.

[Glaug-Eldare]

51. One thing you repeat incessantly

is that we clearly consider all these shooters to be great, upstanding, law-abiding citizens right up until the instant they started shooting. Thing is, most of them were severely disturbed before they ever fired at another human being. The evidence was there that their mental health made their possession of weapons a risk to others, but it wasn't brought to law enforcement and acted upon. Mental illness can make a person with a clean background check dangerous, regardless of whether they'd pass the NICS check or not. I consider this a weak point of our mental health system, and not our gun laws, but in either case these people were not model shooters prior to their massacres. BUT without the information to say otherwise, I'm going to assume the average person is mentally sound.

[Hoyt]

58. Talk to NRA leadership like Grover Norquist who restricts funds for mental health, yet allows easy

access to guns. Besides, what does that have to do with Israel's strict gun laws.

[rl6214]

73. I have never seen anything concerning norquist or his ability to restrict

funds for mental health. Please show me seriously how norquist is restricting funds for mental health.

[Hoyt]

75. You can't be that dense. Because of Norquist's hold on Republicans regarding tax increases

we do not have "excess" funds to spend on anything like improving mental health, not to mention other important programs including improvement in education, jobs, etc.

Why don't you contact your good NRA Board member Norquist and tell him that you want increased funding for mental health to help stop mass murders with guns? Then tell us what he says.

[rl6214]

96. talk about being dense

I ve tpld you numerous times on this boars I dont belong to the NRA so save your talking points. As far as allowing spending on mental health now you are going to move the goalposts and talk about exesses? No truth in reporting from u is there.

[rDigital]

54. You can't regulate or legislate morality.

What happens when the police lose their morality? Afterall, they are only human. The 2nd largest active shooter event in history happened in S. Korea and the shooter was a cop. 57 dead people. In that country, no one has guns except the police.

Government oversight is not a valid argument for why only police (etc) should be allowed to carry firearms. Government is self serving by its very nature at the expense of human lives. It's far easier to run roughshod over a disarmed populace than it is a properly equipped people. Ruling with impunity has to have a cost, and the citizen's side of the social contract needs to have teeth. Firearms are our liberty teeth. A government that cannot trust its people to be armed is not to be trusted. There have to be checks and balances, an armed populous is the ultimate check against tyranny. Would you trust absolute government oversite of the media and journalists in the same way you want levied against gun owners? Blog licenses? Reporter taxes? Take away your internet access? And if you were saying things the .gov didn't want people to hear? Give me a break.


Police can't be everywhere at once, and they have no legal obligation to protect you. They also incur no liability if they fail to protect you. Why would anyone want to outsource their personal safety to people who have nothing to lose if they are harmed/killed? In an active shooter situation, most departments have orders to wait outside for SWAT to arrive. When seconds count...

Thankfully, In this country we are citizens, not subjects, and we have the RKBA because self defense is a human right. Our right to bear arms, protects your right to post incendiary tripe.

Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Disarming the law abiding only emboldens them. Most people that carry firearms legally, carry them for the same reason police do: to protect themselves from those who would do them harm.

If gun owners are as evil as you say they are, why are there any gun grabbers left? Don't think about it too hard I know how difficult that is for you.

Keep riling up the gun owners, pal. You're doing the Pro-2A crowd a huge favor. Thanks

[Ashgrey77]

57. Woo Bum-kon was his name.

I've thought about mentioning this man and what he did every time someone talks about how much safer we'd be if only the police had firearms (and in his case grenades as well).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon

[Hoyt]

59. I really don't care, "pal," what right wing gun crowd thinks.

Quite obvious they aren't most rational crowd in the world.

Shouldn't have to legislate morality - you guys should control your gun issues.

[rDigital]

63. Cool non-sequitur, bro. Cool false dilemma, bro. NT

[bongbong]

31. NRA Talking Point #14

"Criminals won't obey laws anyway, so why have 'em?"

SO TIRED. SO DEBUNKED. Naturally that won't stop the gun-religionists from posting them. The "Big Lie" technique at work.

[Glaug-Eldare]

32. Debunked by who?

It seems relevant to all kinds of prohibition. Notably drugs, whose contemporary prohibition has led to a whole raft of social problems here and around the world. The demand exists, and it's funneling money to absurdly violent people and creating excuses to abridge civil liberties here. I'd rather avoid that with the firearms themselves.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. Calling something a "talking point" is not a rebuttal.

You are simply ducking the debate. We are winning because we use facts and logic while all you have is personal attacks and name-calling.

[spin]

64. The NRA does oppose new gun laws such as another "assault weapons" ban ...

or gun registration. However it doesn't oppose all existing firearm laws and in fact wants to better enforce many.

I feel that the NRA and gun control groups could actually work together to improve existing laws if only those who wish to impose draconian gun control schemes would simply admit that their incremental approach to banning all firearms was impossible to achieve. It would unfortunately take time and might require a President who was willing and capable of the leadership to bring both sides together.

The sad reality is that totally overcoming the gun culture of our nation which has existed since the Revolutionary War is impossible. We will NEVER reduce gun ownership in our nation to levels seen in nation such as Great Britain.

However we can make progress on better controlling firearm ownership and the sale of firearms in our nation. We can combat gun smuggling and straw purchases of firearms that end up available for criminal use in our inner cities.

In order to accomplish these modest but possibly effective goals we will need to force both sides of the issue to a conference table and insist on some compromise. There will be a lot of kicking and screaming from both sides involved but I feel it can be done.

[rl6214]

74. You won't get an answer from that one because you provide a fact based

and logical response to his name calling and . Keep up the great job you do here.

[spin]

80. I've found by posting on DU in the Gungeon ...

that largely those who support strong gun control use mostly emotional arguments and those who support RKBA largely use facts and statistics.

My background was in a highly technical field in which we analyzed problems with the equipment we produced and the resulting data caused us to make changes in our manufacturing processes. Emotional arguments were never part of any solution. Obviously I have a well devolved bias toward facts and statistics.

But the issue of firearm ownership in our nation does have an emotional component. In my own personal life and in my own family I have seen the tragedy that the misuse of a firearm can cause.

But still while I realize that firearms in the hands of those who have mental issues, are misusing substances such as alcohol or other drugs or are engaged in criminal activities are a serious problem, I believe that overall firearms can save far more lives than they take. This is a point that is largely ignored by those who wish to impose draconian gun control.

There are fair arguments on both sides of the issue and I always try to carefully consider the views of those who disagree with me.

I have suggestions which might help to eliminate some of the gun violence we experience in our nation, many of which the NRA would disagree with. That is largely irrelevant as I look primarily for results to problems. Unfortunately today in our nation compromise is impossible on most of the important issues that we face.

Thanks for your support.

[HALO141]

82. Talk about "tired and debunked."

When are the gun-prevaricators going to come up with something new?

[Euromutt]

108. It's easy to debunk a straw man

And the line "Criminals won't obey laws anyway, so why have 'em?" most assuredly is a straw man.

See, it fails to take into account the difference between malum in se--something that is illegal because it is " an ill in (and of) themselves"--and malum prohibitum, something that is an "ill (because it is) prohibited." The only legitimate reason for a malum prohibitum (which is something that does not inflict harm in and of itself) is to prevent a malum in se from occurring; e.g. drunk driving is not harmful in itself, but it increases the risk of harm occurring to life, limb and/or property to a sufficient degree that there is a compelling case to prohibit it in the interest of public safety.

Criminals don't obey laws (by definition), but that's no reason to abolish laws banning mala in se, as the effects of such are inherently harmful to persons and property. But it is a valid argument against a law banning a malum prohibitum that all it does is criminalize not inherently harmful activity while doing nothing to reduce the risk of mala in se occurring.

[4th law of robotics]

6. There was never any intention of stopping with the AWB

it was a first step. Start with the obvious things that don't have much utility and won't elicit a huge outcry (how many people will be affected by a bayonet ban?).

Then work your way up once it has become established in our legal code and culture.

End goal is to completely repeal the 2nd.

Totalitarians rarely start by building gulags. You build up to that in increments.

I'm guessing they didn't expect people would A) figure this out and B) react as aggressively against it as they did.

[Hoyt]

8. Yea, those damn bush Republicans were always looking out for what is best for society.

[gejohnston]

10. If you say so,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257

[HALO141]

84. LMAO

I guess if Hoyt cared about being right then it might bother him that he's always wrong.

[Hoyt]

9. If it is cosmetic, why do so many sick right wingers love them?

[Glaug-Eldare]

11. Gee, I dunno

Same reason the sick left-wingers love them? People like stuff that looks good and is comfortable. Aesthetics vary from person to person. Might as well ask why those sick disgusting women love pretty clothes so much.

[Hoyt]

14. "Pretty clothes" aren't the same as pretty/sexy lethal weapons you guys love.

I think it is far more than aesthetics. I think you guys get a kick out of something that is menacing and looks like military/tactical weapons used to kill a lot of people.

If you find "beauty" in a gun, I'd suggest taking some art appreciation classes rather than spending time blasting away at things like silhouette targets preparing to shoot people.

[Ya Basta]

17. So much fail

Your stereotyping is no less ridiculous than some who believes all pot heads are stupid, lazy and unmotivated.

[Travis_0004]

19. I like my AR-15 because it is lightweight, accurate, and reliable.

I participate in shooting competions (yes, shooting can be a sport). If I showed up with a bolt action rifle, I would get my butt kicked because there are better guns available.

If an assult weapon ban was enacted, I could convert mine to be legal in less than an hour.

I have 3 'evil' features.

1.Pistol Grip
2.Bayonet Lug
3. Collapsible stock.

I could keep the pistol grip, shave the bayonet lug's ear (despite not owning a bayonet, or even knowing how to attach one to my rifle, and pin my butt stock in place.

Sure I could comply, but how does this make anyone safer? Have you heard of a crazy man running around with a bayonet in the news recently? Even if somebody did, are we also going to ban swords? I like my collapsible stock, I let other people shoot my gun. They are not the same height as me. Its nice they can adjust the stock to suit their size.

The Assault weapons ban is nothing but a feel good law that does nothing to decrease crime. Even though hi cap mags were banned, they could be bought (legally, pre ban) for 75.00 or less. Its a bit more than the 10.00 you can buy a used mag for today, but do you think 75.00 will stop somebody who knows they will end up dead or in jail after a mass shooting?

[Hoyt]

20. If it keeps such guns out of circulation, restrictions are worth it.

As I've said before, some of you guys really aren't as law-abiding as you want us to believe - if restricted, you'd just illegally convert it to something that makes you happy.

[gejohnston]

21. none of those examples would be illegal conversions

so your point is???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Pacafishmate]

22. Law and its observance isn't inherently good.

Try thinking critically sometime instead of feeling a need to do what you're told. Your attitude is very revealing as to what kind of person you are.

[Hoyt]

28. "thinking critically?"- Is that what you call strapping a gun on before venturing into public?

[Glaug-Eldare]

30. Wait, what's this thread about?

Are you capable of differentiating the acts of owning a firearm and carrying a firearm? Do you have a psychiatric condition that compels you to continually conflate the two? Make up your mind which civil right you're bitching about.

[Hoyt]

33. I suspect most folks into such guns have carried, permitted or not.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. I had carried before ohio passed it's CCW laws... so what?

[Glaug-Eldare]

41. And Freepers suspect most Muslims are terrorists

Owning and carrying are two separate actions. Ownership is legal in Maryland, so I own guns. Carry is not yet legal, so I have never carried a gun outdoors. I haven't even gone to Virginia to do it, where I don't need a permit. I understand that you have a frothing hatred of people who carry, but you keep on bringing it into discussions where it is not relevant. This is a thread about restrictions on owning certain types of rifles. Virtually nobody carries a rifle. Get a grip.

OWNERSHIP IS NOT CARRY

[Ya Basta]

24. So says the gun haters, criminals and black market

And how arrogantly presumptuous of you to make a blanket statement encompassing all law-abiding gun owning citizens as people who would violate the law to keep themselves happy.

You sound like a bitter hateful person who can't handle the reality of law abiding citizens responsibly enjoying freedom so you must launch a hate campaign to try and demonize them. Sounds like something a right winger does against abortion rights, gay rights, etc.

No sense in further dialog with someone such as you.

[Hoyt]

29. Sorry, guns are not the same as real Civil Rights.

[Ashgrey77]

68. Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment is a civil right Mr. Movinggoalposts. ;)

[rDigital]

106. Thank you for your contribution. Everyone here should have a voice on this subject. Nt

[PavePusher]

40. You are....

READING-COMPREHENSION FAIL and/or INSINUATION-OF-CRIMINALITY FAIL.

You have lost the Internets. Thank you for playing.

[Travis_0004]

44. So because I own a gun, I'm a criminal, and would likely convert it to an illegal gun?

I'm going to assume you own beer, and a car. Is it safe for me to assume you drink and drive?

[Glaug-Eldare]

25. ARs don't really appeal to me, but there's no accounting for taste.

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2012, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I prefer the lines of a curvy bolt-action rifle (wood, naturally), myself. Some people like angular designs with lots of right angles and stampings. Others like futuristic-looking designs with translucent plastics and unconventional shapes. Maybe there are some people who enjoy the AR's "battle-ready" appearance, but the majority opinion I've heard from AR users is that they like the simplicity, the low weight, and the tremendous array of parts and accessories. I doubt your sincerity when you make generalizations like these, but I'll address it anyway. You seem convinced that we see firearms the way you do -- as tools of violence with no purpose other than to kill -- and attribute attitudes to us that you imagine we must have, like racial hatred and bloodlust. The fact of the matter is that when we look at a gun, we see a neutral machine with function and aesthetics. We don't see our guns as a means to facilitate killing innocent people. We're not looking forward to some day when we "get to" take another person's life. Your perspective (that guns are for killing, and only for killing) is alien to us.

[oneshooter]

94. If you can't see the beauty in these, you are a lost cause.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Fashions change. In the 1950's the fashion was to sporterize military rifles.

By "sporterize" I mean that the gun magazines carried articles on how make a military surplus bolt-action rifle into a nice looking rifle with a short forearm stock, polished bolt, polished stock, monte-carlos cheek rest, etc. After Vietnam the fashion became for rifles to have a military look to them.

[Hoyt]

18. Gun haute couture. Now that is funny. Sick, but funny.

[Pacafishmate]

23. He who is without sin should cast the first stone.

Why do you feel the need to constantly judge people? Instead, identify your own shortcomings and strive to be better.

[Hoyt]

27. I think we need to change image of today's gun culture.

They aren't grown up boy scouts anymore. It worked for smoking in public, polluters, drunk drivers, etc.

[rl6214]

81. Today's gun culture is not the same as you imagine the gun culture is

and your "smoking, polluters, drunk drivers" arguement is not arguement at all as it has no relation to this debate.

[virginia mountainman]

34. Speaking of shortcomings....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

The real reason he hates guns so much... He still has nightmares about armed victims....

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. lol... (n/t)

[rDigital]

45. You've got to be kidding me? This is comedy gold. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. If you liked that one, check out his advocacy of vigilantism:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=471849#471995

[twizzler]

92. Well, that's interesting

explains alot of his attitudes towards gun owners.

[belcffub]

97. exactly... I try and explain that to non-gun people all the time

I have three arisaka's... one original, one sportorized by my dad in the early 80's and one sportorized by my grandfather for a custom wildcat round he worked out... I have two 03a3's... one beautifully original... the other sportorized in the early 60's (I have the receipts for both... $15 each when my grandfather got them) and I have a m1 carbine (I think that one was $20)

this may be the first time in history where guns that are actually used in battle don't get sold back to civilians...

[spayneuter]

69. Are you Bill Frist? It's been a while since I read a long-distance diagnosis...

[HALO141]

85. You mean you don't know?

Just because it pisses off the gun-prevaricators.

[Hoyt]

86. I think the answer is more basic - love of guns capable of intimidating and killing lots of people.

[HALO141]

87. Intimidating who, exactly?

You've got to actually "show" the thing for it to be intimidating, don't you?

[4th law of robotics]

99. By that logic spoilers on sedans must be functional

[MotherPetrie]

26. Just ban all fucking guns. Works for me.

[Marinedem]

38. Just ban all fucking crime. Works for me.

Wait.....

[slackmaster]

62. Except, of course, for weapons in the hands of government employees

[spayneuter]

70. You might consider moving to Jamaica where they did just that. You might even be able to escape the

pandemic of gun violence there.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. I would as well, if my guns ever fucked anything.

Wrong tool for the job.

[HALO141]

90. Not GUNna happen.

[virginia mountainman]

35. Great Post, and it really lays the truth of just how silly that law was..NT

[PavePusher]

42. To be fair....

it's more about ergonomics and modularity than "cosmetics".

Apparently some people don't believe in tools that can be easliy customized to the individual user, or adjusted to fit several different users.

It's sad to see such rampant Ludditism on a progressive web site.

[Hoyt]

77. Yes, folks need an ergonomic, portable, concealable, rapid fire, hi capacity lethal weapon to enjoy.

I guess they plan on blasting away from the comfort of their recliner in their old age.

Tell us about your favorite "sporting" weapons.

[PavePusher]

79. I'm assuming you believed you said something meaningful or relevent there...

but damned if I can tell what it was...

[ileus]

43. Yeah......but it made people feel better...and we want happy people....right?

Why won't banners admit their real goal?

[rDigital]

46. They want people to think they legitimately care about their safety.

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Once you get rid of one right, the big one, it becomes so much easier to rule as you please. 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments are next.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Good post. Let's go for the gold and at the very least get the "B" taken out of 2A

That would be a good baby step toward growing up as a nation.

[gejohnston]

53. The B?

My son wants an "assault weapon" that is only sold in Canada. Oh wait, I guess they are not quite as mature as UK either are they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21#Semi-automatic

[Starboard Tack]

55. No they are not (kinda in between), but what does that have to do with the "B"?

I have no issue with RKA, but carrying in public without a helluva good reason, no way will I support that foolishness.

[gejohnston]

56. perhaps but

I think the UK, or at least England, have gone beyond mature. Scotland should get their independence.

[Starboard Tack]

65. They should. Wales too. It's a democracy. If they want it, they'll get it.

Doubt it will change much. They already have their own parliament, laws and bank. They share the same monarch as England, Canada, NZ and a bunch of other countries.
Talking of independence, how about Texas?

[gejohnston]

66. Texas?

depends. There are a lot of cool Texans. Scotland is nothing like Texas. Texas asked to join the union, Scotland IIRC was taken by force. Texan is not an ethnic group, Scot is. While rural Texans have a distinctive accents and distinctive dialects of English and Spanish, they don't have their culture that is that much distinctive from Mexico and the rest of the US. Scotland on the other hand..................................................
The Romans were scared shitless of my Pict ancestors. Any Texan army would be scared shitless of the US and Mexican armies.

[Starboard Tack]

72. There are lots of cool people everywhere, even England.

What would England do for prime ministers if Scotland seceded? Not to mention engineers and scientists.
But all the "tribes" of the British Isles are mongrel, even the Scots. We just have more than our fair share of recessive genes, giving us more redheads. Everyone is scared of the Scots and with good reason. Hadrian was no fool.

[Clames]

71. Talk is cheap.

Lots of cheap talk and no substance behind that sentiment these days.

[slackmaster]

61. Not to cast asparagus on anyone, but there are a lot of new people with 2-digit post counts today

Coincidence?

[leveymg]

76. Some good points. So, ban semi-autos and detachable clips, already.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. This would be functionally impossible

The majority of the rifles in the US feature detachable mags and are semi-auto. (~ 60,000,000)
Add to this the pistols with the same characteristics. (~80,000,000) Many revolvers can be quickly loader via a speedloader.

Unreasonable options aren't needed.

[Jenoch]

91. A ban on

semi-autos with detachable clips would only ban the M-1 Garand, as far as I recall.

[oneshooter]

95. The M1 uses a "en-block" clip. It automaticly"detaches" at the last shot.

Besides, it is not an "assault" rifle. It is a BATTLE RIFLE!!

[Jenoch]

98. If you will note

the message to which I replied, it said that semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips should be banned. The only semi-auto rifle that I know of with a 'clip' is an M-1 Garand. I did not claim it to be an assault rifle.

[thucythucy]

101. So if this Clinton era legislation was as meaningless

and toothless as you seem to imply, why did Gun America collectively go so apeshit over it? As I recall, the GOP, with the total support of the NRA, used it as a huge wedge issue to give us a Republican House and Senate in 1994, and all manner of pundits say it was a major reason for Gore's "defeat" in 2000.

Are you saying gun owners en masse reacted in an emotional, unthinking, and terrifically overblown manner (and in the case of the 99%, were duped into voting against their own best interests) by an "assault weapons ban" was essentially meaningless cosmetics?

If so, that doesn't say much for the intelligence of those taken in by this ploy, does it?

[rDigital]

102. It was

seen for what it was: the first of many attacks bite on our individual liberties and a concrete encroachment in the 2nd amendment. It riled blue dog Dems, independents and repubs alike.

This is why I urge my fellow Dems against advocating for gun control. It's a losing issue.

Do you want to lose both houses of congress for another decade?

[gejohnston]

103. very simple

the phrase is "slippery slope" it is also called people not appreciating being scapegoated for problems they don't contribute to.

It is also a matter of what right wing Neo-Con Charles Krauthammer explained in his WP op-ed. It is a culture war, where many right wingers (like the guy that played Rambo in the movies and Mr. Krauthammer are on the same side as Sarah Brady)
"Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet. " Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of "assault weapons" will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America's home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-en\abling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these "assault weapons," were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

On the other side you have Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) demanding in trembling fury that the ban be repealed because his wife, alone in upstate New York, needs protection. Well, okay. But must it be an AK-47? Does, say, a .44 magnum -- easier to carry, by the way -- not suffice for issuing a credible, "Go ahead, make my day"?
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first -- and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end -- is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

True, part of the reason for the high crime rate is the ubiquity of guns -- which makes the argument circular and a solution seem impossible. But gun control advocates ignore other, egregious encouragements to crime at their peril. The lack of swift and certain retribution, for example. Judges like Harold Baer in New York, for whom four men loading $4 million worth of drugs into the trunk of a car at 5 in the morning, then running away from police, is insufficient cause for a search. Judg\es who need the president himself to yell and scream and threaten before reversing a decision to let serious criminality go unprosecuted.

In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25 to 1 says I don't." So long as both the law-abiding population and the criminal classes doubt that serious crime leads to serious punishment, attempts at serious gun control will prove futile.
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one mi
Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God's work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.

BTW, Canada is almost as "heavily armed" as the US, so I guess his knowledge of his home country is ummmmmmmm debatable.

[thucythucy]

105. It's interesting that many of the same people

who saw the assault weapon "ban" as "a slippery slope" to tyranny--even though it was "largely symbolic," had no problem at all supporting the Patriot Act, which many argue is indeed an actual, not a "symbolic" step toward tyranny. I mean various GOP Congresspeople (and not a few Democrats as well).

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. You did pretty much answer my question, and I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort.

Best wishes.

[rDigital]

107. The Patriot Act is one of the slimiest anti-4th amendment pieces of legislation in U.S. history. nt