Assault Weapons Ban

[Free Bird]

One rule for "yes" folk. Do NOT use the "no good reason" argument. That is old and disproven.

[bedstuy]

Yes.

But, I don't think it's the holy grail for gun control or anything.  Banning assault weapons isn't going to save many lives.  In terms of death toll, the most dangerous gun is a cheap, small handgun.  It's really not a panacea and the question of defining assault weapons is pretty tricky. 

That said, I hope we all agree that certain weapons shouldn't be available to members of the public.  If you could buy machine guns, pipe bombs, RPGs, grenades, etc., we'd be pointlessly raising the danger of any crazy spree killer or terrorist group.  Some people on the NRA will actually argue that point, they think if you ban Surface to Air missiles, only the bad guys will have surface to air missiles.  I frankly think that's insane.

So, when you go down the scale, from nuclear weapons, to sarin gas, to anthrax, to RPGs, to bombs, to machine guns, to semi-automatic rifles, you draw the line somewhere.  At some point you say, this is too dangerous as a killing device to make available to the public.  Am I sure that line is drawn at an AR-15 with flash suppressor?  No.  I'm not a gun expert or a law enforcement expert, and they should make the technical choices. 

But, I actually think that the people who want to have dangerous toys have the onus to prove why they need a dangerous toy.  That's what these are, dangerous toys for men.  There's no reason to put police lives in danger because you want a specific toy. 

[Free Bird]

Here's the thing though. Making something not available to the public in this area is an infringement on an amendment. Banning a dangerous type of vehicle I get, but this is a Constituional right. Besides, making them only available to government officers is a very dangerous, slippery slope of tyranny, which is a driving force of the Second Amendment. If we ban the, there will still be mass shootings because criminals wouldn't listen to the law. Ask Columbine.

[bedstuy]

Here's the thing though. Making something not available to the public in this area is an infringement on an amendment. Banning a dangerous type of vehicle I get, but this is a Constituional right. Besides, making them only available to government officers is a very dangerous, slippery slope of tyranny, which is a driving force of the Second Amendment. If we ban the, there will still be mass shootings because criminals wouldn't listen to the law. Ask Columbine.

Wrong!  That's just blatantly wrong.  The Supreme Court has always interpreted the 2nd Amendment to allow regulations on arms.  There's no debate on that point and history supports it.  The only thing you can't ban are the most popular types of weapons like rifles, shotguns and pistols.  And, just think about it, you're saying that any type of "arms" is allowed by an 18th century amendment.  Could the founding fathers actually have contemplated giving average people RPGs, napalm, chemical weapons, etc?  That's crazy. 

[Free Bird]

Banning ANY type of firearm is an infringement on the right to keep them. What is so hard about that?

[bedstuy]

Banning ANY type of firearm is an infringement on the right to keep them. What is so hard about that?

That's not how anyone has ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment and it doesn't at all follow from the text.

[Goldwater]

No.

[Beet]

At this point, it's nothing more than a strawman for the gun industry to pump up sales whenever a Republican loses.

[Free Bird]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

[TNF]

Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should we allow ourselves to be deprived of arms by the state.

[politicus]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why not? The original purpose of being able to create a people's militia to resist tyranny is no longer valid.

[TNF]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why not? The original purpose of being able to create a people's militia to resist tyranny is no longer valid.

Sure, if you ignore the entire history of the United States.

[Free Bird]

I can't believe I am agreeing with a communist

[bedstuy]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why not? The original purpose of being able to create a people's militia to resist tyranny is no longer valid.

Sure, if you ignore the entire history of the United States.

Yeah, think of all the violent paramilitary groups that have been helpful to progress in this country...

There have been none that I can think of.  Mostly armed groups of citizens lynched black people, massacred Native Americans, bombed government buildings, killed union protesters and eventually became irrelevant because individual violence is totally inimical to social progress. 

[politicus]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why not? The original purpose of being able to create a people's militia to resist tyranny is no longer valid.

Sure, if you ignore the entire history of the United States.

Give some recent (or even post-WW1) examples of armed citizens preventing tyranny.

Anyway, what matters is not history, but the situation now. You can of course debate at what point the original purpose became irrelevant, but hardly argue that it isn't irrelevant today. The federal government is (stating the obvious) far too powerful for armed citizens to matter.

[SWE]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

How dare somebody disagree with you!

[TNF]

I can give plenty of examples in American history where the threat of an armed uprising lead to a shift in government policy.

Since World War I?

The 1930s - The threat of (and actual) uprisings in the wake of the devastation of the Great Depression led Roosevelt to tack to the left and implement a reform program that opened up public life to the millions of workers who were otherwise out in the cold prior to it. This was done, of course, not because Roosevelt was committed to it (he ran as a conservative and governed as one from 1933 to 1935), but because his hand was time and time again forced by the sway of events.

The 1960s - Malcolm X seems to be the best example here. Had there not been someone out there calling for freedom 'by any means necessary' and encouraging self-defense, I highly doubt JFK or LBJ would have gone as far as they did on the issue of civil rights and on the war on poverty. Martin Luther King, Jr. might have made political space for liberals to sign onto what was originally a radical movement (it wasn't Democrats organizing the Alabama sharecroppers and other interracial unions in the '30s), but Malcolm X made that project possible because he and those who followed him scared the sh#t out of white America.

The 19th Century and early 20th Century are also obvious cases. Would there have been a 'Progressive Era' without the labor upheaval of the 1870s-1890s? I'd wager not. And of course, the greatest examples of the armed public forcing through real social reforms and securing their rights lie in the First (1775-83) and Second (1861-65) American revolutions. In the latter, it was the armed freedmen and their white allies that battled back the Klan and won radical democratic reforms at the state level.

[bedstuy]

I can think of cases where the threat of armed uprising aliened the public and lead to a backlash.  The leftist anarchist movement didn't help itself by bombing Wall Street or the Los Angeles Times.  They set back the progressive movement. 

The same can be said for groups like the NOI and Black Panthers who accomplished nothing and were actively detrimental to their communities. 

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by guns.  And, if you could buy a fully automatic AR-15 or a pipe bomb at Walmart, would that actually make things better for people in reality?  That's what I don't get.  You might have some "Red Dawn" "zombie apocalypse" fantasy about "fighting the government."  Why do people need to die in reality for the sake of fantasy? 

[SteveRogers]

Banning ANY type of firearm is an infringement on the right to keep them. What is so hard about that?

Tell us where you would draw the line. Shoulder-mounted missile launcher?

[Free Bird]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why can't I? Would you care to explain from your fainting couch?

That is a Constitutional right. You cannot infringe on it, or we will devolve into tyranny.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The right to bear an arm isn't unlimited. I fail to see how an assault weapon ban would be unconstitutionnal.

[SteveRogers]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why can't I? Would you care to explain from your fainting couch?

That is a Constitutional right. You cannot infringe on it, or we will devolve into tyranny.

Answer my question. Is a ban on shoulder-mounted missile launchers an infringement on second amendment rights? Will it lead to tyranny?

[Free Bird]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why can't I? Would you care to explain from your fainting couch?

That is a Constitutional right. You cannot infringe on it, or we will devolve into tyranny.

Answer my question. Is a ban on shoulder-mounted missile launchers an infringement on second amendment rights? Will it lead to tyranny?

No, because those aren't guns. They are missile launchers. And we always have to watch out for tyranny. That is why why can't place any restrictions on the right to bear bullet launchers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, I think that private possession of "assault weapons" should be banned, along with most other guns and ammunition. If the Second Amendment is a problem, then so much the worse for the Second Amendment. It's probably well past time for that to go, too.

Atlas incarnate here. You can't be serious.

Why can't I? Would you care to explain from your fainting couch?

That is a Constitutional right. You cannot infringe on it, or we will devolve into tyranny.

Libertarianism incarnate here. You can't be serious.

[ElectionsGuy]

three reasons why no for me:

1 - There's no formal definition of "assault weapons", so how far will people take it?
2 - More people die from drunk driving in cars than from people with guns, so I suppose alcohol should be banned too (flawed logic)
3 - Taking away guns from people who do no harm with them only threatens them because the only people that will have guns after said reform are the people who ignore the laws and criminals.

I actually agree that the US's violent "culture" or whatever leads to a lot of stupid people that use them, but banning them is not the answer.