Gun question

[JGowans]

In light of the automatic weapons ban about to expire…

 

I have a good buddy who thinks that civilians ought to be allowed to own the same weapons as police. I didn’t question the right to bear arms or anything like that. I just asked if it was necessary for anyone to be allowed to own any weapon they please. To paraphrase, he indicated that he needed the same firepower as the cops should the U.S. ever become a police state a la Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. I thought that was quite a marginal view, but now I’m wondering how prevalent this train of thought is?

[Greg_W]

Gowans,

 

Aside from hi-cap magazines, we already can own the same firepower as cops. You can acquire pre-ban hi-cap mags on-line or other places, anyway. So, this is really a false argument. The Assault Weapons Ban is a subjective, feel-good law, pertaining to "appearance" and magazine capacity, and action. It bans several kinds of SEMI-auto rifles and shotguns that are common hunting models. The expansion that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer tried to tack on went on to ban all semi-automatic shotguns. Why would they do this if they swore they weren't trying to ban guns for "sporting purposes"? I use a semi-auto 12-gauge; it's personal preference. This law has done nothing. AUTOMATIC weapons (aka, machine guns) were banned in the 20's or 30's. Remember, semi-automatic still means that you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire a round.

 

Greg

 

P.S. This is a bad forum to ask about opinions on guns or the necessity of specific types. Most on this site don't know what your talking about and/or are blinded to cogent argument on the subject.

Edited September 10, 2004 by Greg_W

[foraker]

You want real freedom? Go to the FSU. You can pretty much do whatever you want there these days. Pretty ironic, really.

[Greg_W]

FSU?

[foraker]

Former Soviet Union

[rbw1966]

Not to nitpick AGAIN, but the purchase and sales of assault weapons was never "banned", rather it was merely made a bit more difficult. A pretty toothless law overall that drove the price of assault rifles through the roof. Additionally, AUTOMATIC weapons (i.e. "machine guns") were never banned either, just restricted to those with special licenses.

[Greg_W]

True, rbw, but the restrictions on automatic weapons were pretty damn stringent. I think you have to have an FFL and then some other stuff; not sure.

[rbw1966]

Yes, in fact you do have to have an FFL dealers license to own an automatic weapon. I see nothing wrong with requiring licensure to operate a piece of machinery that far surpasses the killing capacity of say a car.

[bigbong]

" better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it."

[Jim]

While some of the aspects of the law are a bit dubious (banning grenade launcher attachments?) the ban does limit the capacity of magazines. All law enforcement agencies want the ban to continue and see it as a good effort. Doesn't seem such an imposition to me for an odd weapon type. And Greg - you semi-auto shotgun does not come under the definition of this law - correct?

[markinore]

I agree with rbw. The worst thing about the law was the effect it had on prices. This is the same effect that the "war on drugs" has--it increases the price, not the availability.

 

Having said that, I am thrilled! Thank you, George Bush. You have given us a growing federal deficit, an unnecessary war, declining job numbers, and a worse environment. But now weapons prices will fall. So finally, something for me!

[Greg_W]

While some of the aspects of the law are a bit dubious (banning grenade launcher attachments?) the ban does limit the capacity of magazines. All law enforcement agencies want the ban to continue and see it as a good effort. Doesn't seem such an imposition to me for an odd weapon type. And Greg - you semi-auto shotgun does not come under the definition of this law - correct?

 

Jim - You are incorrect in one thing: ALL law enforcement agencies DO NOT want the ban to continue. Yes, there are some law enforcement groups who are behind it, but purporting that 'All' are behind it is simply not true.

 

You are correct in your second point, in the current language of the law. My point was on the expansion desired by Feinstein, Schumer, et al.

 

Greg_W

[JGowans]

So, should regular civvies be allowed to have the same firepower as law enforcement?

[Squid]

Back to Gowans' origninal question, I think that's a very common opinion in certain regions of the country.

I think it's almost a given in the intermountain west (MT-ID-WY-UT etc), but in the more densely populated coastal regions, people always gave me the hairy eyeball if I ever mentioned that point of view.

I think it tracks pretty closely to the red/blue conservative/liberal split you see in voting patterns.

[Dru]

"when the street wars jump off, only one thing to do, grab your gat and squeeze one off."

[mr.radon]

To show those how utterly ridicules the assault weapons ban is I'll summarize an argumentative paper a fellow college student wrote when the ban passed.

He put a silhouette of an AR-15, (non-automatic M16 rifle) this was the pre-ban version. He said, I want to kill a lot of school kids in a playground. Well this gun is banned. Well I don’t want to shoot them at night so let’s remove the flash suppressor. Next slide shows the silhouette without flash suppressor.

Next point, I don’t like to get blood on me and I can kill faster by shooting, so off comes the bayonet lug.

Since I want to shoot a lot of them, I’ll replace the 30 rd, mag with a 200 rd. drum mag so I don’t have to reload as often.

Also, I don’t like the pistol grip, lets put a real nice thumb grip in there.

He shows the final silhouette and says, now I have a very robust weapon and guess what it is legal…..

 

Stupid law,

[Greg_W]

So, should regular civvies be allowed to have the same firepower as law enforcement?

 

YES! I chuckled when I saw an armored truck guard with a revolver on his hip the other day; go semi-, baby!!!

[RuMR]

 

Since its a stupid law will only stupid people have guns now?

[rbw1966]

Revolvers are soooo retro.

[mr.radon]

 

Since its a stupid law will only stupid people have guns now?

Even cops admit this is a stupid law.

Owning a gun makes you neither stupid nor smart. Just a bit safer when the looting starts when the big earthquake hits.

[cracked]

Revolvers are soooo retro.

 

[RuMR]

 

Since its a stupid law will only stupid people have guns now?

Even cops admit this is a stupid law.

Owning a gun makes you neither stupid nor smart. Just a bit safer when the looting starts when the big earthquake hits.

 

why that's just plain stupid...

 

stupid is as stupid does...

[iain]

Bad law? How many bayonette stabbings to do hear about now? Someone could've cut themselves on those things.

[slothrop]

200-round drum magazines are legal?

 

Maybe the ban only affects cosmetic features of assault weapons because the NRA pressured the gov't on the law so much that the resulting compromise gave us a stupid, cosmetic law instead of a robust ban. Just speculating.

[markinore]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the expiring law didn't forbid the sale or possession of large magazines, only their manufacture and import, correct? My local gun shop has never been out of large magazines, but the price of them has gone up.

 

To respond to your original questions, Gowans, yes, I don't see anything wrong with civilians having firepower equal to that of the police. I admit to having reservations about whether civilians should have the ability to own grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles, or other more advanced weaponry. I also admit that the abundance of firearms in this country facilitates their possession and use by criminals, terrorists, and others. I guess I feel that the balance is best struck when people can defend themselves against any sort of evildoer--whether ordinary criminals, Al Qaeda, or governmental actors who are behaving criminally.