Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
JGowans

Gun question

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!!

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

200-round drum magazines are legal? hellno3d.gif

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×