- This topic has 96 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Washington mandated weapons for the militia, and that citizens pay for these themselves. It was perhaps the very first mandate in American history.
I have no idea why you’re not getting this. There is no confiscation of weapons being proposed by the Dems. None. If we ban the sale of certain KINDS of weapons — weapons of mass destruction like the AR-15 that no civilian should be ABLE to get — you still can buy thousands of different kinds of guns. Your “right” hasn’t been touched. Your SA rights are still 100% intact.
Again, nowhere in the amendment does it say you have a right to any kind of gun your heart desires, without limitations, forever, forever able to keep up with the latest technological advances in lethality and capacity. Nowhere. It’s not in there, implied, hinted at, suggested, implicit or explicit.
So we as a society SHOULD ban weapons that make killing sprees easy. It’s insane not to. No one has any need of such weapons UNLESS they want to go on those killing sprees.
Think about it, bnw. There is no other reason to own one.
billy. people do like to shoot weapons just for the sport and fun of it.
you may not understand it. but a lot of people do. i’ve never owned a gun. don’t plan on owning a gun. i have shot an ar-15 before and it’s an amazing piece of technology.
still don’t want a gun. i don’t believe i would be more safe owning a gun. don’t really care much for the right to bear arms.
but i understand why people like them.
so i feel for them. but you also make a good point. when is enough enough? why not sacrifice your own desires for the benefit of our society?
it’s tough.
Yes the keeping pace with technology was the reality at the time of the Revolutionary War and the BOR and has been interpreted as that ever since through the various advances in firearms technology.
No, bnw. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or the BOR to support that reading. Nothing. “Keeping up with the pace of technology” does not exist in our “founding” docs. Not implied, suggested, remotely, indirectly, etc. etc. Not implicit or explicit.
And no one but fringe gun fanatics ever push that “interpretation,” which is really cover for an even fringier ideology: That certain citizens believe they must keep up with the firepower of our military in order to crush it, if they deem it “tyrannical.” Of course, the Don’t Tread on Me crowd sees things like taxes and Medicare as “tyrannical,” so they’re not really the best folks to listen to when it comes to government overreach.
And I say that as someone who sees our political system as illegitimate. I see both parties as illegitimate. I want an end to the capitalism regime of terror and oppression. Yesterday. But I want it to end through the democratic process, non-violently, not through guns. The Don’t Tread on Me crowd, OTOH, has a collective Red Dawn (death wish) fantasy, and if we go down that road, tens of millions will die and we’ll likely end up with fascism.
In short, fuck that.
BNW that is not at all an accurate definition. The M1 was an assault rifle , it didn’t get selective fire until 1944. At the time the 2nd amendment was written assault rifles were muskets. Semi-autos are not at all better for hunting. Bolt action hunting rifles are superior in accuracy and safety. An idiot with a semi-auto 30.06 is the reason I retired from rifle hunting. If I can take deer with one arrow you damn sure don’t need a 40 round clip on your AK or AR. My own thoughts on the problem in general are to concentrate on getting and keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people. The current “background check” is a joke. It’s more of a customer service survey on the honor system than a legitimate background check.
It is absolutely the ACCURATE description. The M1 to which you refer is the carbine. Granted according to the moronic rules of the ’90s it indeed possessed the attributes the Clinton Administration created to confuse the public and profit its campaign donors. The government and the press called the legislation the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 whereas the the actual name of the legislation was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. For those unaware of the moronic rules of that legislation for an assault rifle-
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mountSemi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.That law confused people who do not know firearms. It also made political supporters of Clinton a lot of money by importing weapons such as the M1 Carbine which met the ridiculous criteria but in no way was ever considered an assault rifle. I asked this very question of an ATF agent at that time who agreed with me and further stated the agency is not at all concerned with that rifle. The imported M1 carbines brought increasingly higher prices by the restriction on imports. Pure profit to the importers. Increased prices for all pre-ban variants of other firearms too. It was never about safety. It was always about money.
Cosmetic features[edit]
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications they released in September 2004 when the ban expired.[13][14] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced.”[15] The term was repeated in several stories after the 2012 Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[16][17]ER,
Had to leave earlier so couldn’t fully address your comment on the M1 Carbine until now. The carbine was not intended for front line fighting. It was for support troops that might find themselves in a fight. It replaced the side arm issued to these troops since it had far greater accuracy at much greater range. Since it weighed much less than the M1 Garand and the Thompson submachine gun many troops went out of their way to acquire one in the field. The M1A1 was a carbine with a folding stock only which was reserved for paratroops. The M2 Carbine was the full auto version. Since minor mods were required to enable the M1 Carbine to fire full auto many were later converted as well.
You blew past quite a few points there, automatic weapons are exactly that automatic weapons The were illegal long before the assault weapons ban. Spears swords and axes were all assault weapons too. When that ban was put in place an AR 15 was a M16 minus the automatic sear which can still be bought online starting at about 25 bucks.The bans purpose was to stop psychopaths from “playing army” and going to war with the public. I think a little honest research would net some telling numbers on just how much good that ban did.Take a look at mass shootings data while the ban was in place and then compare it to the last 12 years.
No you don’t understand. Why do you think full automatic weapons are illegal? Even the Firearms Act of 1934 didn’t make full auto weapons illegal. Full auto weapons are Class 3. I’ve mentioned this before a few times. Fill out the paperwork and pay your $200 Class 3 fee and you can buy your machine gun, silencer, grenade launcher etc. Most people I know who have Class 3 bought for an investment since most people can’t afford to feed it the ammo. Silencers are the most useful but their price is still very high.
BTW the AR-15s made DURING the ban still were functionally the same semi-auto rifle. The pistol grip was modified and smaller capacity mags were the norm for civilian sales, though pre ban high capacity mags would still fit those rifles made during the ban. However all pre ban AR-15s were still legal to buy and sell.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
Take a look at mass shootings data while the ban was in place and then compare it to the last 12 years.
billy. people do like to shoot weapons just for the sport and fun of it.
you may not understand it. but a lot of people do. i’ve never owned a gun. don’t plan on owning a gun. i have shot an ar-15 before and it’s an amazing piece of technology.
still don’t want a gun. i don’t believe i would be more safe owning a gun. don’t really care much for the right to bear arms.
but i understand why people like them.
so i feel for them. but you also make a good point. when is enough enough? why not sacrifice your own desires for the benefit of our society?
it’s tough.
I know people “like” to shoot guns. And I’m not talking about taking that away from them. I’m just talking about certain KINDS of weapons. In a sane society, we don’t let people have the capability of mowing down dozens of their fellow citizens with ease, and especially not so we can protect target shooters.
Society must constantly make decisions about competing interests and claims, and it should make those decisions with the general health and safety in mind. If it’s ever a choice between saving lives or keeping things people “like to do,” we should go with saving lives.
Think about driving. I used to race cars on the street when I was a teen. We went waaay over the speed limit to do this, and, though we didn’t think of it at the time, we were endangering lives. Should society get rid of all speed limits because there are people who “like to drive fast”? Should they have accommodated us because we really loved driving extremely fast?
Why are guns considered by some as being beyond all common sense laws, regulations and restrictions? Of all the things to exempt, exempting deadly pieces of metal, DESIGNED to kill, is easily the most insane thing about America.
i agree with you, billy. you wish for the sake of safety people would give up some luxuries.
i’m really just presenting the other side.
and there’s a difference between shooting a pistol and an assault rifle. the precision and power of an assault rifle really is amazing to me.
it’s also what makes it extremely scary to me. i mean a 12 year old could easily learn how to use this thing it’s so easy to shoot. as much power that’s contained in this rifle there’s no kick back and you can just keep firing off rounds one after another.
the thing is insanely precise and destructive. i could hit targets several hundred meters away with accuracy and i had never shot a gun before.
but yeah. what you say is very true. at what point do you say these weapons are becoming to efficient at killing and take them out of the public’s hands?
maybe we need to sacrifice some of our own wants for the needs of the whole.
Take a look at mass shootings data while the ban was in place and then compare it to the last 12 years.
Yeah I had a feeling it be something like that. How bad can it get ?
Oh Billy….take away firearms and I guarantee you will have fascism. And don’t bring up Australia or the UK since I’ve been to both and they are not the USA. The UK may well wish it has a 2nd Amendment with the way that culture is heading.
First off, no one is suggesting that we “take away firearms.” Just banning certain KINDs, which would leave thousands of different kinds of weapons available. IMO, they should be limited to internal chambers only. Which would leave MOST guns available.
Second, if you think the presence of guns in America, in private hands, is what stands between us and fascism, you’re living in a fantasy land. In fact, the easy access to guns currently makes fascism far more likely, not less. And, if you agree with Ben Carson and others about gun control in Nazi Germany, you’re misreading history there, too:
Small correction. I’M more than happy to be for taking away people’s guns.
I dunno what follows, but we know that with 300M guns we get mass shootings every few days… I’m just not good with that anymore.
After the slaughter of innocent children and dozens and dozens of people, it’s time for us to try another way.
If what we have to do is essentially do a 5 year trial where the seized weapons are catalogued and stored, then fine.
But I honestly don’t care about anyone’s right to bear arms when that right is being used to kill innocent people with reckless abandon.
I just don’t care. Anything to make it harder on killers works for me.
And I have no idea what the crack meant about “with the way that culture is heading.” As in, I literally have no idea what that means.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
