The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 1 of 17
Hello,
In visiting the President-Elect website today, I found in his Urban Policies section a stated intention to make the expired Assault Weapons Ban permanent, and to make all firearms childproof.
While these goals are sitting in the corner of the basement, they are still stated goals, and I would oppose them.
I hope he elects not to pursue these flawed policies during his administration.
Question: What have you got against banning Assault Weapons?
Answer: The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban assault weapons. Rather, it banned weapons which have a physical resemblence to assault weapons (they looked scary) and created a situation where fun, sporty rifles became inaccessable. Literally, certain grip options were deemed 'bad.'
I also oppose any legislation that allows peace officers to be armed beyond what is allowed amongst the civilian population. Any limit on civilian arms must apply to police arms as well, to preserve a balance between the citizenry and the people responsible for preserving the law.
Question: Why do you oppose the child-safing of firearms?
Answer: There is no reliable technology available that 'child-safes' a gun while leaving it handy and capable at a moment's notice for defending oneself. 'Child Safing' firearms is a feat to be accomplished with education (I call it gun-safing Children), not whiz-bang features that hobble my ability to use a firearm.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What I really want to know...and I have to warm up here. I own a Remington 308 with a bitchin tactical scope. And an older 30/06 with a four round clip. A British 303. A Colt DA 38.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In visiting the President-Elect website today, I found in his Urban Policies section a stated intention to make the expired Assault Weapons Ban permanent, and to make all firearms childproof.
Police statistics here say that of the home owners that draw thier weapons during a home invasion, 93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons. I can't imagine that, mr home invader at the malbad mansion is leaving in parts.
The 303, Colt DA38, and the 06 are sentimental, and I got enough firepower for a home invasion or a hunting trip. But I still don't get the "from my cold dead hands" mentality. If they came for my guns and said they'd kill me if I didn't hand them over, it's not that unsafe here that I wouldn't hand them right over. As opposed to fighting for them. To me it's the same as if they came to get my gas burning car, or my incandescent bulbs. I know there is the 2nd, but that can't be all there is behind that kind of devotion.[/B/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Answer: The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban assault weapons. Rather, it banned weapons which have a physical resemblence to assault weapons (they looked scary) and created a situation where fun, sporty rifles became inaccessable. Literally, certain grip options were deemed 'bad.'
Hell, Anthony, it didn't even ban those weapons - just the IMPORTED ones. It wasn't about safety, ever; it was about the APPEARANCE of safety, but it was also about protectionism for American gun makers.
And I never understood why it was that having a pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun made me automatically more likely to kill somebody with it.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Question: What have you got against banning Assault Weapons?
Nothing. As long as Assault Weapons are actually banned. There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Question: Why do you oppose the child-safing of firearms?
I don't. Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.
But, I'll also point out that it isn't just the laws that are behind a reduction in violent crime involving guns or similar. It's also the general mentality behind such legislation in society. It works in civilised nations because people are generally peaceful and those that aren't have more limited options to do harm. But, in a different society, when things go wrong they'll go wrong really really badly.
If a country is going to create new laws such as these, it would be naive to think that it'll have immediate effect. As in, those types of firearms are already out there in good supply. It's the long term affects that need to be considered when considering such legislation.
Not to mention that there is a chicken and the egg problem. Do the laws come first, or the mentality? Maybe both little by little?
But, to be clear, these laws need to do what they are intended to do. Otherwise, you're just shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended
).----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons.
93% of them did not NEED to.
The perps, expecting a disarmed and compliant victim set out on a plate for them by policies intended to make them easier for the Gov to victimise (and work just fine for other crooks too) - ran into someone NOT disarmed, NOT compliant, and found somewhere else to be in a hurry, oh what a horrible tragedy, no crime occured to blame on guns, no excuse to jack taxes and put more blue suited gangbangers with badges at the public trough....
Criminals in todays era EXPECT unarmed victims, and meek compliance, fact is when most of them run up across ANY FORM OF RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER, they've no clue what to do, and usually the resister wins out even if unarmed.
Making folks disarmed and compliant isn't the answer, just look at Miranda if you wanna see where that shit goes.
Making it life-threatening to be a predatory scumbag ?
That is.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't. Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.
Ok, then can I put them on all your fire extinguishers and then put the keys out in the glovebox of your car ?
Should make you so much safer from an accidental discharge of your fire extinguisher, which happens oh so often now, right ?
And shouldn't make any difference at all when that grease fire breaks out in your kitchen, right ?
Common sense, any child too young to comprehend, should not be able to access the weapon, pure negligence that would be, and any child old enough to comprehend should know better than to mess with it.
A gun with a gunlock on it ?
Jeeper creepers, just buy a fucking CLUB then, cause that's all it is, by the time you get the damn thing unlocked and ready, you're dead, and you know what ?
If you're THAT fucking stupid, maybe you need to be.
-Frem
PS. No, Anthony, that wasn't nice of me, regardless, I will never ever again be nice on this topic, under no circumstances what so ever.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one (an assault weapon).
Actually, just hearing you say that makes me need/want one.
I'm always cautious of people who decide, "Well, I certainly don't need or want to (insert action of your choice here), so of course no one else should, so we can ban it with a clear conscience." Even changing it to "Well, most people certainly don't need or want to..." doesn't make me any more comfortable.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.
How about filling in all the swimming pools? More children die of drowning in pools than in firearms accidents.
in 2005, 75 children 14 or younger were killed by the accidental discharge of a firearm (789 for all ages). 810 were drowned (3582 for all ages). In fact, almost every other type of accidental death is more likely to kill children than firearms.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
http://www.poolalarms.com/pool_drowning_statistics.htm
In 1992 bicycles killed 260 14 and under. maybe we should ban bikes while we're at it?
http://www.helmets.org/cdcstats.htm
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, just hearing you say that makes me need/want one.
I'm always cautious of people who decide, "Well, I certainly don't need or want to (insert action of your choice here), so of course no one else should, so we can ban it with a clear conscience." Even changing it to "Well, most people certainly don't need or want to..." doesn't make me any more comfortable.
Indeed. One of the more despicable examples of political 'reasoning'. Right up there with "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear".
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think I see your point. the old "they don't like it when you shoot at them", or merely point a weapon in defense accounts for the lack of shooting. Which is a good outcome. That's reasonable.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons.
93% of them did not NEED to.
The perps, expecting a disarmed and compliant victim set out on a plate for them by policies intended to make them easier for the Gov to victimise (and work just fine for other crooks too) - ran into someone NOT disarmed, NOT compliant, and found somewhere else to be in a hurry, oh what a horrible tragedy, no crime occured to blame on guns, no excuse to jack taxes and put more blue suited gangbangers with badges at the public trough....
Criminals in todays era EXPECT unarmed victims, and meek compliance, fact is when most of them run up across ANY FORM OF RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER, they've no clue what to do, and usually the resister wins out even if unarmed.
Making folks disarmed and compliant isn't the answer, just look at Miranda if you wanna see where that shit goes.
Making it life-threatening to be a predatory scumbag ?
That is.
That whole wild west self serve law enforcement did a great job of scumbag prevention. And a compelling point is the tride and true "only the outlaws will have guns" thing.
But one ironic scenario still haunts me, it's the thought of me getting killed defending my rifles and revolver. That's "arse be ackward.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME