Assault Rifle Ban

[cbsmokin]

I see validity on both sides of the argument, but in the mean time I am stocking up because if the bad guys have them I want them to.

[spectrrr]

I failed to get around to addressing one final point last night on the topic of the 2nd Amendment. Primarily this goes out to the numerous arguments raised that basically state the 2nd amendment is or could be outdated since it was written so long ago. Since obviously slavery was an outdated idea, why not guns? (note that I will not address the right to personal protection and crime prevention issue, as I have already spoken on that at length.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The simple fact is this: I do not need guns to protect me from the government TODAY. I've never had to shoot a government agent coming onto my property, and I've never had to organize an armed rebellion against the state. Never have, Hope to God I never will.

--BUT THAT IS NOT WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXIST!--

The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that I never have to do any of the above mentioned things. Our 2nd amendment right exists primarily to ensure that people are always armed. Not because we need the guns now, but because as long as we have them, it is very likely we will not need them.

The argument that our society has evolved, that life today is safer and that we are not at risk from our government TODAY is mostly correct... but fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account WHY our society is safe today, and why we do not have to fear anything from the government. People are corrupt. Look at history, power corrupts. It always has, it always will. find for me, if you can, me a society whose government did not eventually become corrupt. (you won't). If you take away OR LIMIT the guns from the hands of private citizens, you eliminate the checks and balances that ensure the government does not become TOO corrupt.

-------------------------------
An example of this idea (I'll get back to guns in a minute, I promise!):
Most people operate on a risk/reward system. Is the risk of negative consequences worth whatever the reward is for an action?

lose $20 /vs/ win the lottery
lose my job /vs/ get to tell my boss what an a$$hat he is
beat the sh!t out of the guy that just stole from me and insulted me /vs/ get caught, go to jail, get acquainted with "bubba"

You get the idea. And everyone's risk/reward scale is different. meaning that I might think that it is worth it to lose my job so I can say what I'm really thinking to my boss... and you may value your job more than that and continue on as it is.

Tough penalties on assault and murder (hellllo bubba!), coupled with excellent forensics and detective work that significantly increase the chance you will get caught, and topped off with the small (3% to 5%) chance that the guy you try to assault will be packing, all these add up to stack the odds against most people committing a crime. The risk is not worth the reward (for most), hence the net effect is prevention.
-------------------------------

Guns in the hands of private citizens have the same effect on our government. It is a reminder not to get too far out of line, because there IS a risk to the government if they do so. As long as we continue to have our guns, MOST of the people will continue to remain in line, because the risk is not worth the reward.

(I say "most" because there will always be someone who will do the wrong thing at any cost, their risk/reward ideals are a little different from the rest of us.)

But on the other hand, if you say that we do not need guns now, and you take them away or limit their ownership, THEN you will see the problems begin to rise... because now the risk is diminished, and the reward starts looking a lot better....

AND FINALLY, along the same sort of discussion:
Why do I need to have "nice" guns? why not just allow people to have small pistols for home defense and a single shot bolt action rifle for hunting, since that’s all we really "need"?

I think that after reading this post, the answer should be fairly obvious... IF the primary purpose of guns in the hands of private citizens is to deter the government from getting out of line in the future, THEN it stands to reason that those guns must be EFFECTIVE at the job they are tasked with. If everyone owned a 6 shot .22 cal revolver, then we would all be armed... however the tools would be largely ineffective in performing their duty of prevention because they post very little risk.

Thus, it is not only important that we are armed, but also that the weapons we are armed with have the potential to be EFFECTIVE against an opponent, otherwise there is little point to be armed in the first place. Assault weapons are sometimes overkill for self defense. BUT take a look at the armory of the local SWAT team or the military, and you should see that these so called "assault weapons" are really the bare minimum needed to maintain proper checks, balances, and effective prevention against a superior force. Give us all .22 revolvers and we'll see how much of a deterrent that is to a SWAT member.




ok, i'm done now... I think...

-Francis

[atlharp]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

How many shots per second you get with one of those? Can you compare that to my Browning BAR .308? Now how about an AR15?

The shot ration in a specific amount of time is irrelevant. Bolt action rifles have been known to produce rates of fire in the right hands that rival automatic weapons. The Lee Enfield is the notable one:

"The fast-operating Lee bolt-action and large magazine capacity enabled a trained rifleman to fire between 20 to 30 aimed rounds a minute, making the Lee-Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army — Sergeant Instructor Snoxall — who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute." This is well known among Military circles and shows that even bolt action rifles (though not being all big, black and scary to the eunuchs of gun control as that AR-15), can be comparable to modern day "assault" weapons.

The amount of fire is useless if that amount is not aimed and carried through efficiently. I believe one of the worst things to happen in warfare was automatic weapons. It gave armies the false notion that more bullets were better. The reality is that the quality of fire used with proper tactical suppression gives armies the advantage. That is a big reason why our guys have their M-16's with the 3 round burst setting. The automatic fire is really functionally useless unless it's purpose is to flood a particular area with fire-power. In those circumstances, that is when air-support is called in.

Overall, The great thing about AR-15's , Ak-47's, and any other rifle is that it gives the civilian the advantage of being able to defend themselves from their government. The sale and possession of such weapons is important for that alone, and anyone who seeks to disable the citizenry from that right, ultimately undermines their humanity and jeopardizes all their other rights as well.

ATL

Originally Posted by atlharp

The shot ration in a specific amount of time is irrelevant. Bolt action rifles have been known to produce rates of fire in the right hands that rival automatic weapons. The Lee Enfield is the notable one:

"The fast-operating Lee bolt-action and large magazine capacity enabled a trained rifleman to fire between 20 to 30 aimed rounds a minute, making the Lee-Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army — Sergeant Instructor Snoxall — who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute." This is well known among Military circles and shows that even bolt action rifles (though not being all big, black and scary to the eunuchs of gun control as that AR-15), can be comparable to modern day "assault" weapons.

The amount of fire is useless if that amount is not aimed and carried through efficiently. I believe one of the worst things to happen in warfare was automatic weapons. It gave armies the false notion that more bullets were better. The reality is that the quality of fire used with proper tactical suppression gives armies the advantage. That is a big reason why our guys have their M-16's with the 3 round burst setting. The automatic fire is really functionally useless unless it's purpose is to flood a particular area with fire-power. In those circumstances, that is when air-support is called in.

Overall, The great thing about AR-15's , Ak-47's, and any other rifle is that it gives the civilian the advantage of being able to defend themselves from their government. The sale and possession of such weapons is important for that alone, and anyone who seeks to disable the citizenry from that right, ultimately undermines their humanity and jeopardizes all their other rights as well.

ATL

ATL, i tried to give you some more rep for that post but it said that i must spread it around to others first. Great Post!!!!!

i was a big proponent of letting the ban sunset when it came around. i was really excited about it not getting renewed. the funny thing is that i haven't bought anything big since then.

the one thing when people talk about the ban is that everyone keeps confusing automatic weapons and these so called "assault weapons". i know it's been said a few times in this thread but others keep bringing them up as if they are the same thing. fully automatic weapons were banned in 1934 and are still banned and will be banned/restricted to civilian use.

the "assault weapons ban" that bill clinton helped put into effect did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to lower violent crime rates. in short, i'm glad it didn't get pushed through and i do not believe we will see another ban again. the media scare tactics were always great, they used the words uzi and fully automatic so much that it just made the gun savy people laugh. violence was suppose to flood the streets and mass murder was suppose to happen all the time. yet none of it has.

[Ratters]

The funny thing is that these bans have sold way more weapons than if they were just ignored in the first place. I'd say there'd be 10% of the military style weapons in people's hands if the bans never happened. Here in California I know a lot of people who purchased before the '94 ban and then another large crop of new gun owners due to our state ban in 2000.

Just look at the marketing boom the simple fear of a ban has produced.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by Ratters

The funny thing is that these bans have sold way more weapons than if they were just ignored in the first place. I'd say there'd be 10% of the military style weapons in people's hands if the bans never happened. Here in California I know a lot of people who purchased before the '94 ban and then another large crop of new gun owners due to our state ban in 2000.

Just look at the marketing boom the simple fear of a ban has produced.

I agree 100%. I have no use for an AR style rifle. I know many use them for target, varmint, and even deer hunting. I don't. I'm sure I would find it more than suitable for my needs, but so are many other guns that cost less.

Why will I be getting one? Simple...because people who have great power over me, who control how many days a year I work for them (its nearly half by the way) for free, who can take away my ability to see my loved ones, etc....are scared that I'll have one. Notice, never once has there been a proposal that would stiffen penalties for a felon caught with a weapon. It is always an outright ban, from Joe the street thug to Mother Theresa. The only one's to be trusted with a gun are those who work for the government.

That is why there is a 2nd Amendment, and that's why I will always support it....regardless of whether or not I could hit the broad side of a barn with my flintlock.


On to a more important debate...why does anyone need a V8 in a sedan? It is dangerous and excessive. They should be banned, as V6s will do just fine...unless of course you are some mad man hell bent on crashing a sedan into a mall at 120mph.

[Ratters]

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=177117&page=5

[M1903A1]

Originally Posted by Ratters

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=177117&page=5

This video illustrates the difference in mindsets between citizens and subjects.

Quintessential Britishism: "God save the Queen!"
Quintessential Americanism: "F**K YOU!!!"

Shovel and shut up!

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

ATL, i tried to give you some more rep for that post but it said that i must spread it around to others first. Great Post!!!!!

very well said ATL

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

Notice, never once has there been a proposal that would stiffen penalties for a felon caught with a weapon. It is always an outright ban, from Joe the street thug to Mother Theresa. The only one's to be trusted with a gun are those who work for the government.

That my friend, is an excellent point, and should be a glaring hint to the careful observer just what the "purpose" behind such bans are.

For years, lots of people have been calling for tougher penalties on the laws we already have. Funny how those go ignored, but we always keep bringing up the gun BAN issue again. And I thought they cared about my safety...

I don't own any guns, but I plan on purchasing one in the next few years. I've shot a few and really do enjoy them. I don't hunt because I think I like fishing more, but I have no problem with hunting. I went to a gun show once and there was some awesome stuff there. Gun collectors are a whole different breed of badass. I would really like to have a 357, not because of technical aspects, but because I have fired one before and I have always liked them. However, mine would be for my own defense against the irresponsible. I don't see a call for a ban as a legit thing. I see a call for personal responsibility and common sense being the way to go. However, that ideal doesn't really hold the ability to work, due to the people it would be aimed at being, well...stupid. Just my 2 cents.

[mojo65]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

I didn't realize that assault rifles were available when the second amendment was written.

Just as an fyi, I see no problem with law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons if they want to play with them at the range. I admit they'd be a little much for hunting though.

See the picture of Mr Heston on page one of this thread. The Black powder rifle in his hands was the assault rifle of its day.

Originally Posted by Ratters

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=177117&page=5

I wonder if America would stand up to this if it happened here?

well England has started their line of nonsense with the whole, you can't put up barbed wire around your shed because someone trying to get in might get hurt and sue. Regardless of the fact that they had to climb the fence to get hurt. England used to be the balls. Alan Quartermain, Bond, Victor Mclaughlin type bad asses. the Scotsmen warriors who walked into battle at the sound of the pipes are having their testicles removed. I'll pass. from my cold dead hands. Sir, you are missed. man that sends a chill down my spine.

[WyoBob]

I thought there were some good thoughts in these blogs to go along with the thoughtful posts in this thread:

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com...ilization.html

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

WyoBob

Only law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals do not, that is what makes them criminals. If "they" want to keep "assault weapons" out of the hands of criminals they should deal with the criminals themselves.

They need to get rid of the problem not the tool, and punish the criminals not the good decent people who live in America...