Firepower: Part II
Wow, the 3rd cent has gone national...I would like to express my gratitude to all those who posted comments on my last post. I am pleased to see some discourse on this issue, even though I find your arguments intolerant, narrow-minded and chillingly bigoted.
I was not expecting any sort of response to my post and therefore did not include any reasoning for my position on firearms and my support for the Assault Weapons Ban. Well, here it is:
Let me first say, I understand that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was a flawed piece of legislation. It was written with far too many loopholes and exemptions.I know many of you disagree with my position. That’s fine, it’s one of the reasons America is a great nation; our ability to think for ourselves. Even right-wing, pro-gun libertarians like you have the right to think and say and express yourself however you want. I’m just glad I live in a different state (although Idaho has more than it’s fair share of right-wing, pro-gun libertarians.)
That’s why I support not just the renewal of the AWB, but the significant strengthening of it. Two bills are in congress right now to do that very thing. They are H.R. 2038 and S.1431. Unfortunately, now that the ban has expired, that Sen. Bill Frist and Rep. Tom Delay have spoken, and President Bush has hidden from the issue like a coward, it is very unlikely anything will come of it.
Now, before everyone has a complete conniption, I am not anti-gun. My step-father is an avid hunter. I enjoy target shooting with pistols and clay pigeon shooting with shotguns as much as anyone. About the most fun I’ve ever had was shooting his 50-caliber muzzleloader rifle.
I fully believe that he and all other law-abiding Americans have the right to own guns for hunting, sport shooting and personal defense (although I do not believe owning a handgun does anything constructive for your personal defense).
That being said, I am 100% anti-assault weapon. There is a good reason they are called "assault weapons." Here are the reasons why I am anti-assault weapon:According to FBI data analyzed by the Violence Policy Center in their study "Officer Down" (which was endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police), one out of five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2001 was killed with an assault weapon. When it comes down to it on this issue, I’m going to throw my support behind police.Banning these weapons does not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights. If constitutional rights were infringed, the law would have been overturned, or a least challenged, in its 10 years of existence. It was not.
To Mr. Nelson at www.LifeLibertyEtc.com, you have your logic backwards. Yes, the Assault Weapons Ban did outlaw certain features on these weapons. I’ve heard other opponents of the ban say similar things recently: that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons.
Just for everyone’s information, the cosmetic features outlawed in the ban are military features such as silencers, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks and bayonets, all of which are designed to specifically increase the concealability and lethality of these weapons.
Back to my point, your logic is backwards because many of the weapons had those "cosmetic features" before the ban. After the ban was enacted, people just took off the bayonets, flash suppressors and silencers, making the same guns legal again. This is why I support H.R. 2038 and S. 1431.
I understand that the assault weapons which were banned were all semi-automatic, and could only fire one round at a time. However, the ban also outlawed high capacity magazines, which is where the great lethality comes from. Someone can pull a trigger quite rapidly and discharge a large amount of ammunition in a short amount of time if they have a semi-auto assault weapon and 50-round magazine.
While most rifles, especially those for sport shooting and hunting, are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, these formerly banned semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire.
Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired (by pressing the trigger repeatedly) from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession. I know I’ve seen criminals and terrorists do it.
Outlawing "violent rap-music lyrics and violent pop-culture movies that glorify gun violence" as proposed by Alpine18, will not do anything to curb gun violence. We have always had violent movies and music. Other nations listen to the same music and watch the same movies and they don’t have the same amount of violence as the United States.
Something else is to blame. I’m not positive what is, but I am certain that rap music and pop-culture movies are not.
Assault weapons serve no legitimate sporting, hunting or personal defense purposes and have no place in our communities. Individuals, even law abiding individuals, do not have the right to own these sorts of weapons. Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine. Uzis, AK-47s and Street Sweepers are not.
Liberally Yours,
Slingshizzle
(a.k.a. a “blissfully” and “grossly misinformed dumb ass” who is also a “poor misguided youth” and a “sheeple” “dumbfuck”)
11 Comments:
Er, no.
First, I'm certainly glad you are "not anti-gun" - but you sure seem to be. You're certainly in favor of expanding the government's ability to make certain types of firearms illegal based almost exclusively on their appearance. That ranks as "anti-gun" in my lexicon. If the government can take my semi-auto rifle now, they'll have much less trouble taking your revolver later.
I'd suggest you re-read the Second Amendment because it doesn't say a thing about hunting, sport-shooting, or personal defense.
I analysed the VPC's report of "one in five officers." One problem though, the VPC expanded the definition of "assault weapon" to include the (not banned) Mini-14 (two fatalities), the (not banned) M1 Carbine (four fatalities), and the (not banned) SKS rifle (eight fatalities) to get their "one in five" statistic. That's fourteen of the 41. I guess "one in eight" wasn't striking enough? There's no data given on the breakdown of of officers killed with other rifles or shotguns, or even handguns of the type you claim to support ownership of, but since some 170 officers were killed by firearms OTHER than "assault weapons," I'd think that - being logically consistent - you'd be all for banning those because they're obviously much more dangerous. I mean, after all, FOUR out of five officers who died of gunshot wounds were killed with THOSE guns, right?
But those guns are OK... why, exactly?
Just for your information, silencers fall under the 1934 NFA law, not the AWB. Now that that's out of the way, please explain to me, in detail, how "flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks and bayonets...increase the concealability and lethality of these weapons." Please, be specific. And no, you can't use the "spray-firing from the hip" VPC/Feinstein talking point. You've apparenly never shot one of these evil black weapons in that manner and actually tried to hit anything. When was the last time someone was criminally bayonetted to death? And, if I put an adjustable buttstock on my AR-15 so that my wife (5'0" tall) can shoot it comfortably, does it become immediately more lethal? Cool!
If you believe "Assault weapons serve no legitimate sporting, hunting or personal defense purposes and have no place in our communities" you've obviously never been to a (nationally sanctioned) rifle competition recently. The #1 weapon in use at these is the AR-15 rifle, followed closely by the (not banned - yet) M1A.
My AR-15 is perfectly suited as a varmint rifle - I can whack a coyote out to 300+ yards with it. Prarie dogs, being smaller, are limited to 200 yards or so. That's not a "legitimate sporting purpose"?
Sir, you're simply uninformed, and bigoted against a class of firearms that YOU don't want to own. I submit that you are of the class of "useful idiots" that organizations such as the Violence Policy Center (the only gun control organization out there that explicitly states their effort is to get handguns - ALL handguns - banned) and the Brady bunch use to move their agenda forward. Their intention is to make America just like England. Go take a look at what England's gun laws have done for England - but be certain you do a specific "before and after" comparison. They've gone from almost no gun crime (before their draconian laws) to ever-increasing gun crime (after their draconian laws.) Now, extrapolate to here, where our criminal class has had very little compunction about shooting people.
The people Diane Feinstein can disarm are people like you and me. They cannot disarm the criminals. And you ought to know that.
"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"
"Want my gun? You can pry it from my cold dead fingers"
I'm proud to say that I own both a Glock .45 pistol and a .22 rifle. The .45 is locked down in my apartment and the .22 is at my ranch in St. Maries.
Despite your claim that you know the law, you prove that you don't when you claim that "silencers" were and now are back on assault weapons. Silencers are just as regulated as machines due to the 1934 NFA laws. The only thing the ban regulated was the threaded barrel, which is what the flash suppressor screws onto.
Also, please tell me how a bayonet makes a firearm more lethal? I guess you could stab someone with it but then that wouldn't be considered shooting them. As for a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, and pistol grip, how exactly do they make the bullet more powerful and lethal?
According to the Brady Gun Control Group "assault weapon crime" dropped 66% in the last 10 years. They claim the "ban" is responsible for this. However, every single "banned" firearm that existed back then is still in the public hands. So if the number of assault weapons didn't go down, then obviously the availability of the firearm had nothing to do with the drop in crime.
In addition the VPC, which you love to quote, says there are millions more "copy cat" assault weapons that have been produced in the last 10 years. So if the number and availability of assault weapons has actually gone up, why are you and the anti-gun groups claiming the ban had any effect on the crime rate? There are more assault weapons “on the street” today than 10 years ago, yet crime as dropped 66% during that same timeframe. So the truth must be that assault weapons reduce crime!
Have you ever been to a high power shooting competition? It's a real sporting competition complete with national matches. You should really check it out.
A lot of the competitors use AR-15s. I can assure you, they do not "spray fire from the hip".
Ever been varmint hunting? The AR-15 is a perfect rifle for that. Again, there is no spray fire from the hip.
Have you ever tried to "spray fire from the hip" with an AR-15. If you are lucky you might hit something 10 feet away any further than that and you are guaranteed to miss what you are shooting at. Any semi-auto firearm, including hunting rifles, can be "spray fired from the hip" but just because you can do that with it, doesn't mean it was designed for it.
You really have no clue what you are talking about do you. You are just repeating the crap the anti-gun groups have said.
Uzis, AK-47s and Street Sweepers?????
Hey guess what, Uzis are automatic firearms so are AK-47s. They are the guns you see the "terrorists and criminals" on TV shooting full auto. The ban doesn't apply to them. Duh.
Street Sweepers. Ok, now you are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about and are just parroting the anti-gun crap. Street Sweepers were classified as a "Destructive Device" and are regulated under the 1934 NFA laws. How could you not know this? Anyone that knows anything about firearms and laws knows this.
I'm boggled that you think your opinions on a subject matter on which you are wholly ignorant are of any value. I guess the internet has proven the old saying about people thinking you are a fool v. your opening your mouth and proving it.
Hint- rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder, regardless of what you call them. The military rifle marksmanship manuals are readily available on the internet, however as a fool you believe propagandists rather than using the most basic tools to find out if your opinions are based on the facts. If it weren't for a society to coddle you, you'd be starving in a mud hut, worshipping the sun and and thinking the world is flat because that's what you had been told.
Read the second amendment, read the context it was written in. The second amendment allows citizens to own ARMS (weapons). Not guns, not swords, but it says ARMS. Because the Founding Fathers new that a free population had to be one that was armed to defend its rights.
Study our government. It is built with plenty of checks and balances within its structure to ensure that no one person or group attain to much power. That is why there is different bodies for executive powers, legislative powers, and judicial powers. Well, an armed population is the fail safe mechanism built into the Constitution. An armed population cannot be oppressed.
As for crime, there is no evidence that banning weapons of any type cuts crime. Most evidence points to the opposite. Just look at England. Crime is a nightmare over there (far worse than ours, in many categories such as breaking and entering), gun crime is up, and English bobbies now need to carry guns. Guess gun control doesn't work.
Spray fire from the hip? I am an Infantryman in the US Army. I have been to Iraq. Nobody in the US military is trained to EVER fire a weapon from the hip. And I am glad your terrorist do fire from the hip, because they sure can't hit anything like that.
Do some research, use hard data. Go to your library and look up FBI crime stats. The information is out there.
-rifleman2000
I agree with you and I don't. I agree because I think guns are terrible, and all guns should be banned for public ownership. I work in a juvenile detention center, and I spend my days learning about the mindset of people who have them in their possession. If more sane people had guns, it may be different.
However, a gun ban will not solve the problem. People who want guns will find a way to have guns. If they ban assault weapons, then they will just kill people with hunting weapons, or whatever is not banned. Or, they will just find a way to have the banned guns. I know from personal experience that the people this will affect the most also believe that they are above the law and do not have to answer to it. In order to solve the problem, they need to go to the root of it. The statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. The people that do not need to have the guns need to be better educated and taught morality. Of course, that does not happen, and this is mostly because of their parents. So to solve the problem, legislators would have to make a law that would force parents to be good parents. Also, they might want to make laws banning violent movies and music, and anything else that portrays poor morals. And I think you stated that these have been around forever, and they have no effect. That is not true, though. I see these boys every day. They are young and naive, and they honestly believe that what they see on tv and hear in music is true. Then they try to emulate such behavior, because it is "cool". They join gangs that train them in such behavior and make it part of initiation. Anyway, I could go on, but back to the subject at hand...Such laws will never be made, and shouldn't be made. That is censorship and defies our so-called freedom. So does the ban on guns. I do think guns should be banned, but not really, because it goes against everything our country was founded on. Guns are terrible, vile things, for any reason. However, some people feel that way about coffee, and if they banned coffee because of its harmful effects, I would find a way around it. It was the same with prohibition. Fortunately, and unfortunately, we can't just ban what we don't like in this country. Well, supposedly, but in its correct form, our democracy would not let such actions happen. Instead of going to so much trouble about banning guns, they should focus more on what they can do, and offer help and education to those who wish to own them. Also, offer more support to parents in need and try to find a way to put morality back into our society to further end such problems as guns being used for crime and evil.
Wow, Christi. That was well said, though I am a gun owner I certainly respect your views on guns. I like coffee too.
But the point remains, legislation does not work on issues like this one. Examples are:
Prohibition: Banned alcohol for the "common good." Led to a hugely profitable organized crime complete with crime wars and plenty of violence. Don't think it stopped anyone from drinking.
The war on drugs: Drugs are illegal! That means there is no more drug problem! Wishful thinking. Again, drugs are now a highly profitable business for criminals and their activities lead to plenty of violence.
Guns: Banning guns would have the same effect. It would be a lucrative criminal business (selling guns to criminals, drug dealers), would probably lead to worse violence. Just look at Chicago or Washington D.C. Because, unlike drugs, guns have a positive aspect in society. They are used for recreation and sporting. More importantly, they are used for self-defense, and it is documentable that areas that allow the carrying of firearms for self-defense have less crime. Liberals would teach you to put yourself at the mercy of a criminal as to "not anger him." Ask yourself, would you want one of your family members to have their life decided by a criminal? Or would you rather have them confident and competent at defending themselves? I wouldn't want one of my sisters begging some criminal to not rape them. God forbid, but I would much rather here they killed a would be rapist. Lastly, the right to bear arms are an integral part of our rights as free people.
One of the peculiarities of the now defunct AWB was that while it outlawed various combinations of components, it did not outlaw any particular component. If a component was legal before the AWB, i.e. pistol grips, lugs, folding stocks, flash limiters, they were still legal afterwards. All that changed was how many could be used on a newly assembled weapon.
Semi-auto weapons have been in common distribution since the end of the 19th century. In all major conflicts since 1890, fully automatic weapons and single-shot, magazine-fed bolt action rifles were always the predominent weapons. This was true in WWI, WWII, various Asian wars, and all current wars. The heyday of the semi-auto weapon is long past. It is at best a second-line military weapon at best.
The US was unusual in that it was the only major combatant in WWII to issue a semi-auto as the standard infantry arm. The Soviets were the only other military to issue semi-autos in large numbers, but that was widely eclipsed by the huge numbers of pistol-calibre machine pistols they issued to their front-line troops.
All of this begs the question: Why do so many liberals spend so much time and money fighting old technology? Semi-auto weapons are used in very, very few crimes. Of all the crusades near and dear to liberals, why this one? If you look at the resources spent on fighting gun ownership, you have to ask why liberals don't spend it on the homeless, the pregnant, the uneducated, the elderly, and on and on.
The answer is simple -- it's about the money. Sarah Brady makes a very good living scaring people. In fact, the gun-control industry generates quite a bit of money. Politicians are the greatest beneficiaries.
There is absolutely no emperical data that shows any form of gun control reduces crime or deaths, period. This has been shown by the Center for Disease Control. Even the spokesman for the Brady Center stated recently that the well-deserved death of the AWB would mean nothing in that it was a pointless law.
BTW, has there even been a law that prohibited a piece of machinery that didn't result in the creation of machinery that was ultimately better and more efficient at producing the same results?
Saint Gabriel
Post a Comment
<< Home