Assault Weapon Ban Lifted

[miscellaneous]

From Matthew Good's Blog:

 

 

Monday, September 13

Back On The Streets

If you visit this blog often then you’re probably aware of the link on the sidebar that leads to Tom Mauser’s petition. Tom’s son Daniel was killed at Columbine, leading to the creation of Tom’s petition urging congress to renew the assault weapons ban passed in 1994.

 

Today the US Congress failed to renew the ban, meaning that once again Americans can keep assault weapons in their homes. Republican legislators refused to extend the ban, plainly revealing their support for pro-Republican gun lobbyists.

 

You might be asking yourself why someone should have the right to own, for example, an AK47, Uzi, or AR15. It’s a good question, one that I firmly believe can’t be challenged by Constitutional promises concerning fire arms written hundreds of years ago.

 

The majority of Americans, and American law enforcement officials, support the ban. Yet it’s being lifted. Why? As the saying goes, money talks…

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Campaign contributions -- Gun rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989, far more than the nearly $1.7 million contributed by gun control groups. Gun rights groups have sent 85 percent of their contributions to Republicans during that time, while gun control groups have supported Democrats with 94 percent of their contributions.

 

*Lobbying -- Gun rights groups are even more dominant in lobbying expenditures than they are in campaign contributions. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.

 

*Independent expenditures and communications costs -- Gun rights groups have spent far more than gun control advocates on independent expenditures, which are aimed at the general public and expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, and communications costs to their members about candidates. (Independent expenditures must be paid for with limited "hard" money contributions, while groups can spend unlimited funds on internal communications costs.)

 

(Source)

 

 

 

 

 

 

An arms industry protected by a constitutional provision is a clear indication of blatant federal militarism. The insult is that it has been conveniently married to the concept of personal liberty, thus escaping proper scrutiny. No civilized nation need be so in love with fire arms. Even worse, one that points fingers at others and accuses them of being overly militaristic (prior to invading them, of course). Only those concerned with maintaining and strengthening their own ability to control and influence via militaristic means would act in such a manner.

 

Ironically, the new American revolutionary prefers not to carry a gun. And that, of course, is a revolution worth participation.

 

Found here: http://www.matthewgood.org/blog/archive/20...511432915889122

 

 

This is very, very frightening.

[Crusader]

Wow, the US government is really fucking up big time.

[juanpe]

the more things i hear something coming from the USA lately, the more impressed, shocked and angry I become...

 

unbelievable...

[HoboFactory]

How depressing. Now criminals will more frequnetly outgun the police and would-be terrorists can legally purchase these weapons. The consequences for this are bound to be disasterous.

[ToadMan]

indeed they will. Can somebody tell me what use an assault weapon has, other than taking human lives?

 

And they always miss quote that amendment, it says: "The right to bare arms, in the form of a militia, for the greater good of the state" It was added, after the revolution so that they didn't have to muster an army should the british return.

 

Peace

[Crusader]

You don't protect yourself with a machine gun...

[HoboFactory]

A few years back they kept showing this robbery gone wrong on TV about these 2 guys (in California if I'm not mistaken) that somehow managed to get their hands on AK-47 assault rifles with special high-capacity mags. On foot those 2 guys walked around, shot up what must've been a few city blocks, put the whole city in a state of emergency. It occurs to me that if these guys had pistols like the vast majority of armed robbers, they certainly wouldn't have done all the harm they did and would've been dealt with by police many times more quickly. But think now that all these thousands of armed robberies that occur in the USA every year, how many more will now play out like this particular incident.

[compman_55]

So now who is the threat... terrorists or Americans???

[HoboFactory]

American terrorists.

[miscellaneous]

I think I saw that, on 'the worlds greatest bank robberies' or something. Crazy...

[Sparq]

The issue is also one of some people trying to twist the 'assault weapon' definition to include other weapons. A single shot, bolt action hunting rifle becomes an 'assault weapon' the instant you mount a bayonet on it, though it's little more than a spear.

 

By the way the AR-15, as a civilian weapon, does not have a fully automatic firing mode....as such, "800 rounds per minute" is irrelevant. It's not more dangerous as a weapon than any other semi automatic rifle, it just looks 'scary'. Most states let you own them even under the ban. The only difference with the ban lifted is magazine capacity.

 

I don't expect it to cause problems...hell, look at England - incredibly tough gun laws, and the crime rate is phenominally high in larger cities. Sure, the street cops only carry a club, but there are response teams with sub machine guns waiting to back them up. Guns don't cause crime, though they do augment it in rare situations.

 

I really don't support the ban, but it's also not something i'd have been inclined to fight.

Edited September 14, 2004 by Sparq

[ToadMan]

Although you make a point, I don't see any use for anybody to own a semi-automatic weapon. Is it for hunting todays super animals?

 

The point is, that the uzi, AK-47, and such weapons are not, and where not designed for hunting, or any legitimate task. These kind of weapons have no other purpose then to take human life. It's that simple.

 

Show me a legitimate use for these weapons. Give me an example on an animal that requires 800 rounds to bring down (that lives in the united states).

 

Peace

[Crusader]

The sasquatch? Wait that's Canadian.

[HoboFactory]

The mag size thing does matter as demonstrated by the robbery incident I mentioned above; these guys had guns with like a 75 round capacity, had it been 10 or less.... well the whole thing would've been resolved a hell of alot faster.

[october]

I've seen that bank robbery clip a dozen times and it always reminds me how glad I am to be Canadian...

 

Way to go Dubya.

[Boond]

curses jon you beat me to my joke...superanimals like the electric eel

 

but yeah this scares the crap out of me....i remember watching a documentary on the bank robbery, two gunmen in state of the art body armor and high capacity mags full of 7.62 armor peircing bullets were were essentially walking away and and supressing police under a heavy barrage of fire. wounding, killing, destroying the landscape...due to the body armor the policemens 9mm bullets couldnt do any serious damage...and this was before SWAT teams became common place...or ERTs as the case may be

 

grizzly episodes like this scare the bejesus out of me...sure britain may have a higher crime rate, but so what? why the hell let people purchase automatic weapons and increase the danger on the streets....first criminals are going to upgrade to submachine guns and assault rifles...than the police...next thing you know a car chase will turn into a war zone rather than a small shoot out....gun laws are lax enough, especially in america where every phyco has a gun, why give them uber guns and increase the risk?

[Sparq]

That's the thing - if you're going to commit a crime with it, are you really worried about how legal it is? It's not that hard to find high capacity drum magazines and the like...the ban only really had any major effect on lawful owners. Anyone why buys a weapon for the specific task of committing crimes can just as easily find the same weapons illegally, ban or no.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Now there's finally a place for me to legally fulfill my Grand Theft Auto fantasies.

 

are there any plans to lift the ban on civilian tank ownership?

[ToadMan]

You haven't answer me: What is the lawful use of these weapons. Stop beating around the bush (pun) and tell me who has a lawful right, and use for these weapons. Why do citizens need AK-47s?

 

Peace

[Sparq]

Why does the average citizen need a police scanner? A radar detector? Tesla coil in the garage? Model rockets, art, motorcycles, alcohol, swords, fireworks, those stupid singing fish you hang on the wall, and a thousand other things...

 

Civilians don't technically NEED alot of things. Some people simply have interests, hobbies, etc that involve these things...entertainment value. The difference is that guns are inherently seen as 'bad' by the general public - I'm willing to bet alcohol is responsible (well really the user is resposible, but you get the idea) for alot more deaths than firearms are in North America. Really now...of all the things I mentioned here, how many of them have any PRACTICAL use in most situations? Just the guns. Self defence (sword might work too). Hunting (no, you don't NEED a semi automatic military carbine, but anyone who hunts large game with the 5.56 NATO standard is asking for trouble as it is).

 

You don't NEED to get plastered and play pool, you don't NEED to throw darts, you don't NEED to go to the range and shoot targets, but some people enjoy doing those things. Hobbyists, collectors, competetive shooters, hunters, and people who just feel safer having a powerful weapon to defend their home with (though to be honest, a rifle is a terrible choice for home defence). I have no problem with gun ownership for those reasons. Chances are if the weapon is documented and legally registered to you, you're not planning to commit murder with it.

 

I'm sure it's obvious by my posts that I am not in any way anti-gun (a dying breed, apparently). I see them as a tool and a toy as much as a weapon. With the proper motivation, a shovel will kill you just as dead as an AK-47 - it's all a matter of who owns the gun and what he or she does with it.

 

That said, I also wouldn't be particularly distressed if the ban were reinstated...it really makes little difference to me. I don't live in the United States, and were I to buy a gun, it'd probably be a shotgun anyway.

 

i remember watching a documentary on the bank robbery, two gunmen in state of the art body armor and high capacity mags full of 7.62 armor peircing bullets were were essentially walking away and and supressing police under a heavy barrage of fire. wounding, killing, destroying the landscape...due to the body armor the policemens 9mm bullets couldnt do any serious damage...and this was before SWAT teams became common place...or ERTs as the case may be

 

And guess what they used to stop them? M4/CAR-15 patterned assault rifles. If the regular police force had even a few decent weapons lying around that little standoff would have been over in about 5 minutes. What strikes me as odd is that even with scores of police firing hundreds of bullets (granted, they were 9mm pistol bullets), not even one ever managed to hit the entirely UNARMOURED head of either robber.

Edited September 14, 2004 by Sparq

[Mouko]

Great fun. Everyone loves assault rifles and machine guns.

 

A Boy And His AK-47.

[Sparq]

Guns and bombs are a few of my favorite things - but having no desire to use them to threaten, injure, or kill a person makes it essentially a hobby. Well, not even a hobby, since I almost never get to use firearms.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Wesley Clark said it best:

 

"As a hunter, I have twenty some odd guns in the house. But people who like assault rifles, well they can join the military. We have them."

 

Here's something that Chuck Heston and the boys'll never tell you: the British aren't coming back. They gave up those plans a long time ago.

[Boond]

well i have had some experience with guns...and im not anti-gun or anything....22s are good fun, and might i say more fun working the bolt action...if a gun i s a toy than why do you need to fire so many bullets in a minute? recreational shooting is generally more about skill and making one perfect shot or aiming and reaiming to make several perfect shots...magazines always took the fun and challenge out of shooting for me...and from friends who hunt regularily, it is better to take an animal down with one clena bullet, so that the carcass can be used better and the pelt isnt ruined....

 

of course i guess with an automatic weapon one could kill a deer and turn it into suasage meat in one go...but you would have to take the bits of fur and lead out of it before you eat it

[Sparq]

In the case of fully automatic weapons...that too can be fun. To date I only have experience with replicas and 'gun-like' devices which fire fully automatic, but it's fun to just rip off a nice long burst. I agree that working a bolt action is fun too - I shoot a cheap .22 single shot bolt action rifle whenever I get up to my cottage.

 

As for hunting - Yes, one bullet is ideal, but there's also the issue of making a quick follow up shot if the animal doesn't go down. You don't want to have to chase the thing for miles while it slowly bleeds out...not pleasant for the hunter, and even more unpleasant for the animal...compared to a clean kill. I'd be satisfied with a bolt action, but magazine fed rifle, or a pump action deer gun (rifled slugthrowing shotgun)..the second or so it takes to actualte them should be fast enough. Full automatic for hunting is ludicrous, I agree...it will remain illegal despite the lifting of the assault weapon ban.

 

I guess it comes down to disipline...the people who take an AR-15 and hose a deer down with 15 bullets instead of taking the time and using the skill required to do it right don't deserve their hunting licences. That's one step away from walking around at night stunning deer with a bright light and shooting them up close.