Assault Weapons Ban

[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?

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.

Oh, please direct me to the part of the constitution that talks about "guns."

[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.

Oh, please direct me to the part of the constitution that talks about "guns."

Now we're just getting to semantics, which is a clear sign that you have nothing else.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

Oh, please direct me to the part of the constitution that talks about "guns."

Now we're just getting to semantics, which is a clear sign that you have nothing else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

…

[bedstuy]

Hey!  The definition of these words is what I say it is and if you disagree, you're just arguing about semantics!!!

We are talking about the meaning of words when we're interpreting a law or a Constitution.  We can't just declare things mean what we would prefer, it has to be some meaning that comes from the text and facts and circumstances which inform how we interpret words.

This discussion is about the word "arms."  To quote an etymology website:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arms come from the Latin.  I think we can agree that Latin words cannot mean only "guns" and not "missile launchers" because they couldn't have had a word for "guns" because they hadn't been invented.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, simply because there is no good definition of an assault weapon.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

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.

lol @ 'devolve into tyranny.' If the government was actually going to come after its citizens, your glock will mean nothing when you get drone'd by some guy in a trailer in Nevada.

[Deus Naturae]

This whole discussion is confused by widespread misconceptions. An "assault rifle" is an actual category of firearm, but "assault weapon" is just a made-up term politicians and anti-gun activists use because it sounds scary to ignorant people. It's part of a conscious campaign by the anti-gun lobby to prey on public ignorance and deceive people into confusing commonly owned firearms like the AR-15 rifle with machine guns and other military-style weapons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://reason.com/archives/1995/11/01/shooting-blind/print

These people have no regard for fact or truth...they are more than happy to exploit fear and ignorance to achieve their desired political ends.

Also, this is somewhat unrelated but I came across an interesting Sigmund Freud quote the other day: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Not that I agree it, I just found it interested. I used it in an argument I had recently with a hot-headed leftie friend of mine and his reaction was predictably hilarious.

[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?

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.

Oh, please direct me to the part of the constitution that talks about "guns."

Now we're just getting to semantics, which is a clear sign that you have nothing else.

I think you see exactly where my argument is going. You, on the other hand, are just asserting things in a trolling manner without engaging in debate. Give us a plausible explanation for why "arms" means all guns, but only guns and nothing else.

[Potus]

The Assault Weapons Ban does very little to protect people's lives.

Let's say Dave buys an AR-15 for $500. He spends, let's say, $500 a month on groceries. He doesn't register this AR-15, which I understand is illegal but there are tons of unregistered firearms that aren't harming people. Or maybe he does register it and the AWB doesn't include a mandatory buyback program, so he can keep it but not sell it to a gun dealer.

The AWB passes, banning the sale of that AR-15. Because this restricts the supply so much, prices for an AR-15 go through the roof. Dave's $500 AR-15 is now worth $2,000.

Dave just lost his job! He doesn't have enough in savings to do everything, so he needs help with groceries. He goes to his local drug cartel connection, because everyone in my town at least has a general idea of who has connections to the big guys, and he sells his AR-15. That pays for 4 months of groceries!

Dave wasn't hurting anyone. His AR-15 was in his gun locker in case someone broke into his house. Or maybe he went target shooting every once in a while. But the gun was harmless. The AWB fails for the same reason most prohibitions fail. They centralize the guns with the bad guys.

There are 80 guns in this country for every 100 people. Gun culture is deep and ingrained. It's absurd and impractical to try to just outright ban portions of it. It's bad, unenforceable policy.

Look at where we've applied some very strict gun control policies in this country. It's a tough sell to say Chicago is some sort of peaceful, safe streets utopia. They've had heavy regulations on assault weapons and on handguns. Chicago, though, experiences plenty of gun violence.

Gun control doesn't work. It's dangerous.




Also, I've always read the "well regulated militia" clause as a sort of reasoning, not a contingency. "Because this is important, you have an inalienable right to bear arms." It's the logical backing rather than a contingency.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The Assault Weapons Ban was a largely useless piece of legislation that served little real purpose. As someone who is actually somewhat knowledgeable about firearms, I cannot support it.

[Intell]

The F'ing  2nd amendment constitution stops me from supporting it. If it was any other country, I would support it.

[bedstuy]

The F'ing  2nd amendment constitution stops me from supporting it. If it was any other country, I would support it.

No, it doesn't.  Nobody thinks that. 

[Intell]

The F'ing  2nd amendment constitution stops me from supporting it. If it was any other country, I would support it.

No, it doesn't.  Nobody thinks that. 

It says you can regulate not ban.

[bedstuy]

The F'ing  2nd amendment constitution stops me from supporting it. If it was any other country, I would support it.

No, it doesn't.  Nobody thinks that. 

It says you can regulate not ban.

No, it doesn't.  You certainly can't ban all private ownership of weapons or guns.  You can ban types of arms from private ownership, like machine guns, chemical weapons, tanks, pipe bombs, grenades, surface to air missiles.  There's no debate on that really.  Do you disagree?  I don't understand that argument.  That's like saying the United States has a ban on cars because we have restrictions on the emissions and CAFE standards which prevent certain models from being sold here.

The question is where do you draw the line, and according to the Supreme Court, the test is popularity.  If a type of gun is popular and common among the public, it's Constitutionally protected. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Proud gun toter in favor of the AWB.........

[All Along The Watchtower]

I find it fascinating that an individual right to keep and bear arms-outside the context of a "well-regulated militia", which FWIW would have included all adult (white) male citizens, as mandated (!) by state governments, at the time of the Constitutional Convention-was not a mainstream understanding of the Second Amendment for nearly 200 years.

[Intell]

The F'ing  2nd amendment constitution stops me from supporting it. If it was any other country, I would support it.

No, it doesn't.  Nobody thinks that. 

It says you can regulate not ban.

No, it doesn't.  You certainly can't ban all private ownership of weapons or guns.  You can ban types of arms from private ownership, like machine guns, chemical weapons, tanks, pipe bombs, grenades, surface to air missiles.  There's no debate on that really.  Do you disagree?  I don't understand that argument.  That's like saying the United States has a ban on cars because we have restrictions on the emissions and CAFE standards which prevent certain models from being sold here.

The question is where do you draw the line, and according to the Supreme Court, the test is popularity.  If a type of gun is popular and common among the public, it's Constitutionally protected. 

Ok, now I support an Assault Weapons Ban.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yes. No one in their right mind needs an assault weapon.

[Oak Hills]

Voting "yes" just to spite the pro-gun crowd.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes. No one in their right mind needs an assault weapon.

Please define what you think that an "assault weapon" is.

[Ebowed]

lolguns

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The main trouble is 3D printed guns, which could come to scupper most gun laws in the future.

[courts]

No. It has so little impact on gun deaths that the Second Amendment right overrides it.

^^^

correct, and the "assault weapons" banned are semi autos not anything actually designed for use in war zones. if anything just ban unlicensed handguns and forget about it. that's the only sort of gun "compromise" that i could live with. of course that would require some honesty and logic on the part of the voters and politicians who want "reasonable gun control." which means it will never be seriously talked about outside obscure internet forums

[Associate Justice PiT]

No. It has so little impact on gun deaths that the Second Amendment right overrides it.

^^^

correct, and the "assault weapons" banned are semi autos not anything actually designed for use in war zones. if anything just ban unlicensed handguns and forget about it. that's the only sort of gun "compromise" that i could live with. of course that would require some honesty and logic on the part of the voters and politicians who want "reasonable gun control." which means it will never be seriously talked about outside obscure internet forums

     It would also require voters and politicians who want "reasonable gun control" to have a basic understanding of what they are trying to control. Just another reason why it will never happen.

[Redalgo]

There is little point in even trying anymore given how extensive their proliferation has become. We may as well focus on crewed weapons, anti-vehicular armaments, explosives, and combat vehicles. Require registration and licensing tied to successful completion of routine safety courses and/or tests of the rest.