Jump to content

Gun question


JGowans

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by Greg_W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rolleyes.gif

 

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. laugh.gif

 

why that's just plain stupid...

 

stupid is as stupid does... fruit.giffruit.giffruit.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...