MERGED: Assault Weapons

[Klaus]

nbc: no you aren't (at least not because of this )

So is it so much fun that it's worth more dead policemen? And more terrorstrikes?

 

[nbcrusader]

Our society would simply colapse if there was a "car Ban" for a few years. Economy would definetly colapse.

How about we ban cars that can travel faster than 25mph? Higher speeds mean more fatalities. We don't need to go faster.

 

[BostonAnne]

Use it on a firing range. I've done it (a long time ago). It was fun. It would be like any other endorphine-inducing activity.


Am I a bad person?

No. Perhaps people that have taken steps to obtain a gun license can also use one at a firing range. I still don't believe that people should be able to buy one and keep it.

It's more like a safety issue to me. We have seat belt laws, speed limit laws, littering laws, hazardeous waste laws. We follow rules in this society to make it safe for all. It just seems like common sense to keep the assault weapons ban after some terrible crimes have happened in history to require the ban in the first place.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Prior to the ban's passage, assault rifles were used to kill and injure dozens of innocent people in some particularly heinous crimes, including:

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.

There just isn't any good to come of this ban expiration..

The flip side question is - what bad came of the ban in the first place?

 

[nbcrusader]

The flip side question is - what bad came of the ban in the first place?

Let's take away your rights and see if you are worse off....

I think this would be an interesting question in a variety of situations.

 

[Salome]

yeah, situations like why the law would tell me that I can't use hard drugs or drive 160 kilometers per hour on the freeway

 

[BostonAnne]

It ban isn't taking the right to bear arms nbc. That's a separate issue all together. It's avoiding the dangers of having these types of weapons in circulation.

 

[ThatGuy]

Let's take away your rights and see if you are worse off....

I think this would be an interesting question in a variety of situations.

There are limits to every freedom, even those that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Obviously freedom has its limits when balanced against public safety.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the Supreme Cout case Shenck v. U.S.

 

[nbcrusader]

But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.

 

[BostonAnne]

But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.

Ok, you've been frustrating me all day with your arguments as they didn't seem very valid. This is the first one that I am going to go off and think about - as it actually immediately made sense.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Supposedly the NRA is going to spend 25 mil to get Bush re-elected

 

[ThatGuy]

But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.

Is this a caveat that's specific to constitutional law? Otherwise, under this logic, wouldn't it be legal for one to buy and posess drugs as long as one didn't actually use them?

 

[nbcrusader]

Ok, you've been frustrating me all day with your arguments as they didn't seem very valid. This is the first one that I am going to go off and think about - as it actually immediately made sense.

Sorry I didn't raise this earlier - but they are all interconnected.

 

[nbcrusader]

Is this a caveat that's specific to constitutional law? Otherwise, under this logic, wouldn't it be legal for one to buy and posess drugs as long as one didn't actually use them?

Arguably, yes. But there would have to be evidence of a number of people wanting to buy drugs for display.

 

[ThatGuy]

Arguably, yes. But there would have to be evidence of a number of people wanting to buy drugs for display.

So you're againt knives and box cutters being confiscated before flights, then? After all, they have many other purposes besides potentially being used as weapons during a flight.

 

[Salome]

But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.

that is the point that can be argued yes
while it seems to me that they don't call it an assault weapon for nothing

my knowledge of law is basically limited to tax laws
but usually prevention does have a place in law
and since it's hard to point out what good it does to allow assault weapons except for that not allowing would take away a right (or priviledge as I would like to call it) I don't think it would be much of a stretch to aim for a general ban

 

[BostonAnne]

But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.

OK, the military has weapons and the civilians have the right to bear arms. Military weapons such as bombs and tanks are not available to civilians. I think that assault weapons should never have been available to civilians in the first place.

We have seen the results of allowing these weapons to be available to civilians, it didn't work out so great and now we realize we should have had more rules regarding sophisticated guns in the first place.

So let's just reclassify them as military weapons instead of banning them.

 

[Klaus]

So let's just reclassify them as military weapons instead of banning them.

smart idea

 

[nbcrusader]

So let's just reclassify them as military weapons instead of banning them.

The name "assault weapons" is given to a category of military weapons downgraged for civilian use.

The primary difference is that these weapons cannot fire in full automatic mode.

 

[BostonAnne]

The name "assault weapons" is given to a category of military weapons downgraged for civilian use.

The primary difference is that these weapons cannot fire in full automatic mode.

Well, it was a mistake to downgrade military weapons. We can't predict that all of the civilians will be responsible with them and shouldn't take that risk anymore. How do you suggest that we correct this mistake if banning is so offensive?

 

[anitram]

It's like there is a segment of the population which is unable to or unwilling to compromise on this at all, and it will probably remain that way until 6 guys from overseas or somewhere in the US walk into a McDonalds with AK-47 and obliterate the people dining inside. Then you bet your ass we'll be banning assault weapons faster than you can fry a McNugget.

If you can pre-emptively engage in fullout WAR with a sovereign nation, you should also pre-emptively ban these weapons. That there is any discussion here baffles me at all. If the government has a right to know what book you're taking out of the library, then they should also have a right to tell you where to stick your uzi.

 

[pax]

NbC, you haven't answered ThatGuy's question--I thought it was a good one.

 

[BAW]

It's like there is a segment of the population which is unable to or unwilling to compromise on this at all, and it will probably remain that way until 6 guys from overseas or somewhere in the US walk into a McDonalds with AK-47 and obliterate the people dining inside. Then you bet your ass we'll be banning assault weapons faster than you can fry a McNugget.

It has happened.

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html

the suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. One squad car sustained 57 hits. A sidewalk kiosk, used for cover by officers on the scene, was perforated with 150 bullets.

After the shooting stopped, more than 2,000 live rounds were found in the suspects' vehicle. Drums loaded with additional ammunition were found on the suspects' bodies. Eleven police officers were injured. One officer went down in an exposed area. He was in jeopardy of execution until another officer, defying incoming rounds, drove a squad car to the downed officer and rescued him. Fortunately, none of the officers were killed.

These guys were so heavily armed, the LAPD was totally unprepared. This shoot out took place right in the middle of North Hollywood, California in the middle of the day. People were horrified at the fire power these bank robbers had yet that small segment of the population who wants these guns for "fun" will blame it on "bad men" not "bad guns"

I guess the 73% of us who don't want this ban to expire don't matter for sqat over that small group.

 

[nbcrusader]

So you're againt knives and box cutters being confiscated before flights, then? After all, they have many other purposes besides potentially being used as weapons during a flight.

Are you comparing the constitutional right to carry a box cutter (?) with the limited prohibition to carrying one in a narrowly defined circumstance (on a commercial airline)?


Note that ALL potential weapons are banned from aircraft, not just ones that we can vilify

Restrictions on personal freedoms, in such limited context, are not uncommon as long as they are well defined, needed, and give individuals an option (i.e., you don't have to go through the metal detector at the airport - you can take a bus instead).

 

[nbcrusader]

NbC, you haven't answered ThatGuy's question--I thought it was a good one.

Sorry, I was out with my son this evening

 

[Popmartijn]

The name "assault weapons" is given to a category of military weapons downgraged for civilian use.

The primary difference is that these weapons cannot fire in full automatic mode.

I'm sorry, I'm not a weapons expert, but when is it not in full automatic mode. From the information I've seen, some of the weapons that are available from today on include those that can fire 600 to 800 rounds per minute. How can that not be automatic?

Here's the picture from the BBC where I got my information:

BTW, anyone wants to bet when the first killings with these weapons occur? I wanted to say today, but I'll take a conservative guess and say this week.

C ya!

Marty

 

[DrTeeth]

Why are we debating the legality of a ban while that obviously wasn't a problem in 1994?

 

[Klaus]

Note that ALL potential weapons are banned from aircraft, not just ones that we can vilify

You're telling me they are stripping constitutional rights during flights?
If yes, it makes 100% sense - and forbidding these weapons in general would be a good idea.
Maybee weapons can be allowed to people who have a kind of "driver licence" to weapons so that we can maximize the chance that these people have a responsible personality and aren't in the mood, being inspired by games like "Doom", to bring this "action" into their neighbourhood - which could be our neighbourhood.

 

[beli]

Wow, arent gun owners in the USA required to license each gun?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I feel sorry for the police who will be up against these weapons

What is that Charlton Heston quote again?

 

[pax]

LOL, NBC, probably having much more fun that we were here, too.

Thanks for keeping this thread civil, too, everyone.