Assault Weapons Ban Lifted.

[KillaKilla]

"Also, law abiding people will abide by laws" isn't an argument, as most people are not law abiding. The argument that criminals will get the upper hand is bull, as a shotgun would have a much higher chance of hitting (if 0 choke) and will , of course, kill someone much faster (much largert wound area, more blood loss) and thus will incapacitate them faster.

So why not ban shotguns, since we've proven that they're more deadly? Oh wait that's right, they're not the Flavor of the Month for crime.

Also, hunters have found that assault rifles like the FN FAL make good hunting weapons as they provide a unique challenge. They also don't require as much maintenance as your high powered hunting rifle.

No, because they have use outside killing people (you mentioned hunting) and are the only weapon for trapshooting. If you want a challeng in hunting, why not just buy a crappy barrel, or a bow? And assault rifles need more maintanance than almost any bolt-action rifle. Remember, most of these guns are gas powered, which makes them require alot of cleaning, and most people use cheap ammo. For those who don't know, Gas powered+cheap ammo= cleaning every 35 rounds fired, if you want the gun to last forever, without jamming or other such problems.

 

[Miles]

That depends on the gun really, Also places outside the US have less crime partly due to the fact that they are homogeneous societys. Its alot easier to have violent crime in america since there are so many people who come from different places and that makes it easier for people to hate others who are perceived different than them.

 

[welsh]

Noted before, most of this argument is old now and has been discussed before.

Bradylama- please try to avoid initiating a flame fest.

As for the argument, this comes down to a simple issue-

The right of people to own a specific of gun vs. the importance of regulating guns.

The politics on this gets extreme. Note a few posts above the question- would would warrant a ban? The answer- nothing. An extreme answer for an unqualified right to own guns regardless of social costs.

That the right to have assault weapons was necessary to maintain a militia? What?

Militia's were a small sub-culture in the US that used to build bombshelters and collect assault weapons in the 1980s (the survivalists) and became the "militias" in the 1990s. Not sure what the point of these organizations are, but they seem to emphasize two things- the fear of powers large then themselves, and the need to be heavily armed.

Ok, someone else said, that the right to bear arms was necessary to deter foreign invaders? Hunh? From who? Canada or Mexico? Or maybe to fight off hoards of Dominicans? What country do you think plans on invading the US?

To maintain the power to overthrow the government? Are you kidding? Except for a few whackos like the Free Men, who don't want to pay taxes? Do you really want to arm a bunch of fanatics to overthrow the government?

And somehow the denial of the assault weapons ban- a ban that was never challenged by the NRA for it's constitutionality, is an attack on the individual's right to bear arms. Please, what it bans is your right to own a few guns forcing you to give up the joy you might have of owning an AK-47.

If I were a cop about to bust a gang, I'd be happy knowing that they couldn't buy AK-47s.

Likewise, god forbid someone have the right to sue a gunowner in Virginia who sells large numbers of guns to a certain individual who he reasonably would know will sell those guns illegally in New York. Somehow he's excused from the standards of negligence that responsibility that governs everyone else's actions?

So the right to bear arms prevents the individuals right to obtain legal recourse through law? And what about through regulation?

Sorry, but an individual's desire to own anything they like has to give in, sooner or later, to the issue of public safety.

Every modern nation has gone through a period in which the opportunities for individuals to violently pursue self-help has been highly regulated and curtailed for the good of society, the maintenance of public peace, and the resolution of grievances through legal recourse.

Most of the arguments posted above are pretty thin. Really, read the other gun threads.

 

[Lord 342]

"Also, law abiding people will abide by laws" isn't an argument, as most people are not law abiding. The argument that criminals will get the upper hand is bull, as a shotgun would have a much higher chance of hitting (if 0 choke) and will , of course, kill someone much faster (much largert wound area, more blood loss) and thus will incapacitate them faster.

So why not ban shotguns, since we've proven that they're more deadly? Oh wait that's right, they're not the Flavor of the Month for crime.

Also, hunters have found that assault rifles like the FN FAL make good hunting weapons as they provide a unique challenge. They also don't require as much maintenance as your high powered hunting rifle.

No, because they have use outside killing people (you mentioned hunting) and are the only weapon for trapshooting. If you want a challeng in hunting, why not just buy a crappy barrel, or a bow? And assault rifles need more maintanance than almost any bolt-action rifle. Remember, most of these guns are gas powered, which makes them require alot of cleaning, and most people use cheap ammo. For those who don't know, Gas powered+cheap ammo= cleaning every 35 rounds fired, if you want the gun to last forever, without jamming or other such problems.

I won't repeat it all for fear of starting a flamewar, but Bradylama is right. Shotguns may be rather ideal for close work agains unarmored targets, but as long as full-auto weapons are illegal, criminals will be the only ones to have them, thus giving them the edge over the general citizenry. Furthermore, shotguns are poor at range, have a dreadfully slow rate of fire (what if six goons jump you?) and you can't carry one about conveniently. Even sawed-off shotguns are rather large, and they only shoot twice at most. (Whoops! Sawd-off shotguns are banned because they're only useful for crime! Sawing off the barrel makes them terribly innefective beyond a few meters) Shotguns kick like a mule, so with the size and usability issues, what good are they to a 98-pound woman worried about getting gang-raped in a rough neighborhood?

 

[Bradylama]

That the right to have assault weapons was necessary to maintain a militia? What?

Militia's were a small sub-culture in the US that used to build bombshelters and collect assault weapons in the 1980s (the survivalists) and became the "militias" in the 1990s. Not sure what the point of these organizations are, but they seem to emphasize two things- the fear of powers large then themselves, and the need to be heavily armed.

*sigh* If you are aware of history, and the purpose of a militia, then you'd be fully aware that your statement is pure demonization.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

"The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

When we are alone, we are all militias of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty."

"What distinguishes a militia from an army

1. The authority for militia is any threat to public safety.
2. Those active in militia are usually not bound for a fixed term of service, or paid for it.
3. Those active in militia cannot expect arms, supplies, or officers to be provided to them.
4. No one has the authority to order militia to surrender, disarm, or disband."

In other words, a group of volunteers who engage in armed resistance outside of the professional military.

"Public Safety" is of course, subjective in perception. Thus, members of militias shouldn't expect mercy from any government bodies. That is, however, the risk one takes when one joins a militia.

Ok, someone else said, that the right to bear arms was necessary to deter foreign invaders? Hunh? From who? Canada or Mexico? Or maybe to fight off hoards of Dominicans? What country do you think plans on invading the US?

None at the present. Though, the political climates change constantly. Just 20 years ago we were living under the threat of nuclear annhilation. Just because militias have no particular use now does not mean that they won't in the future. That is why we have rights, you know, to ensure freedom from any threats they may face in the future.

To maintain the power to overthrow the government? Are you kidding? Except for a few whackos like the Free Men, who don't want to pay taxes? Do you really want to arm a bunch of fanatics to overthrow the government?

In case the government should attempt to take away our freedom, the citizenry should be prepared for armed rebellion. I'm not talking about a bunch of survivalist crazies running around in the woods, I'm talking about the people. And besides, not all militias are full of crazies.

And somehow the denial of the assault weapons ban- a ban that was never challenged by the NRA for it's constitutionality, is an attack on the individual's right to bear arms. Please, what it bans is your right to own a few guns forcing you to give up the joy you might have of owning an AK-47.

If I were a cop about to bust a gang, I'd be happy knowing that they couldn't buy AK-47s.

You'd be a pretty stupid cop, then, as gang members can still buy Avtomats on the black market. The gun bans in the UK hasn't stopped gangsters from acquiring weapons.

Likewise, god forbid someone have the right to sue a gunowner in Virginia who sells large numbers of guns to a certain individual who he reasonably would know will sell those guns illegally in New York. Somehow he's excused from the standards of negligence that responsibility that governs everyone else's actions?

Gunowners aren't qualified to sell guns. I've never said that they should. Why are you bringing this up?

Sorry, but an individual's desire to own anything they like has to give in, sooner or later, to the issue of public safety.

Only, you know, the Assault Weapons Ban didn't improve public safety, nor reduced crime.

Every modern nation has gone through a period in which the opportunities for individuals to violently pursue self-help has been highly regulated and curtailed for the good of society, the maintenance of public peace, and the resolution of grievances through legal recourse.

Let's be for real here, governments desire a disarmed citizenry because they represent a threat to their power, not because said governments have legitimate concerns for public safety.

The last time the common folk were incapable of arming themselves was during Medieval Europe. And as I understand it, being a peasant wasn't so great.

 

[Lord 342]

The last time the common folk were incapable of arming themselves was during Medieval Europe. And as I understand it, being a peasant wasn't so great.

Let's not forget Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, and any number of other totalitarian governments. Disarming the people is a favorite tactic of totalitarian states.

The right to keep and bear arms is the most important right, as it is through that right, should need be, that all the others can be secured.

 

[Bradylama]

All rights are equally important. The Right to Bear Arms simply gives us the means to protect them.

 

[Lord 342]

True, true.

 

[Makdaam]

Let's not forget Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, and any number of other totalitarian governments. Disarming the people is a favorite tactic of totalitarian states.

Not only, it's a matter of culture you live in. For example European Countries (can anyone tell us about the situation in Japan?). We've got police to protect us (which works great in most cases, yes yes excluding the Polish police force... ).

We've kicked communist's asses without guns... BUT! Trying to overthrow US government would be a lot harder and I don't think guns would help.

BTW do you know that you cannot posses or drive tanks there? It's possible in Europe, they only fill the cannon with lead if you don't have the right weapons permit (not many people can have a 90mm cannon in their garage). And how would you overthrow a government that has probably the largest and most modern army in the world?

I am not familiar with US culture, so I'm can't say what role a gun can play in everyday life there, In UK guns would be mostly useless, in Poland they would be needed (lazy police and stuff) and in Italy they might be very harmful.

 

[Bradylama]

(can anyone tell us about the situation in Japan?)

Trusting crime rates from Japan is a little iffy. The homicide rate rose after a certain form of suicide was declared illegal, where the father kills his family and then kills himself.

Japan's problem is teen suicide. Kids that can't handle the intense pressures of the Japanese school system usually either become shut-ins, or kill themselves.

 

[welsh]

Ok, let's think about the militias a bit-

Regretfully, my statement is not pure demonization-

A "militia" is a group that is part of the so-called militia movement.

The militia movement is an extremist movement based on armed, paramilitary groups which exploded onto the scene in the mid-1990s. The movement used the rationalization that the American people needed armed force to help defend themselves against an increasingly tyrannical government that was becoming the puppet of a socialist globalist conspiracy called the "New World Order." These armed groups were called militias, both to evoke the image of the Minuteman of the Revolution and to try to claim legitimacy by asserting that these paramilitary groups were the statutory "unorganized militia" of federal and state law.

The catalysts for the militia movement are many, but most center around a fear of gun confiscation and the role such confiscation would play in their various one-world conspiracy theories. The major events working to spark the movement include the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs, the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Manufacture Ban. A variety of personalities became active in promoting the movement, including John Trochmann, a friend of Randy Weaver who founded the Militia of Montana; Linda Thompson, a lawyer from Indianapolis who produced a controversial videotape on Waco and operated a popular "patriot" computer bulletin board; Mark Koernke, a University of Michigan janitor and short-wave radio personality; Larry Pratt, the head of the radical Gun-Owners of America; and Pete Peters, the Colorado Christian Identity minister; among others. The first groups began forming at the end of 1993; by mid-1994 there were a variety of such groups in many states across the country. While some print and media journalists noted the emergence of this movement, in general little attention was paid to the phenomenon until late 1994, when civil rights organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League released reports on the militia movement.

The militia exploded into prominence, however, in April 1995 when early (and generally erroneous) reports indicated that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombing suspects, had belonged to a Michigan militia, or that militia groups were in some way directly connected to the bombing. As a result, nearly every newspaper and television station began looking at local militia groups. By and large, the intense publicity caused the movement to grow, as many would-be sympathizers heard about the existence of the movement for the first time. Militia growth appears to have been steady throughout 1995 and the first half of 1996. The primary illegal activities among militia groups are related to weapons and explosives. Militia groups in Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, California, and a number of other states have seen members arrested for possession of illegal weapons and/or explosives. Currently, the militia movement seems to be stagnant

In otherwords, the New Militias are a bunch of wackos.

I mean really, if you think spending your nights patrolling the evening with a semi-automatic rifle anticipating the new world order will send black helicopters to get you, advocating extreme rightwing rhetoric and decrying how the Assault Weapons Ban is an infringement on your Second Amendment, than maybe you really need to get out more.

"Jeez, what to you want to do tonight?"

"Let's go play para-military with our new assault rifles!"

Whoopee for you!

Sorry but I think your paranoid delusions need to be taken into account in the balance of individual rights vs. public safety.

Oh and the law on Militias-
http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp

ANd please, no *sigh* bullshit.

If you want to be part of a militia, join the national guard. Oops, but that might mean you have to go to Iraq.

And this- Britian is having higher crime rates because they banned guns- a bit deterministic. Could it be that there are other social-economic factors at play? AN increase in narcotics related crime perhaps? Immigration and labor problems?

ANd before we start saying how the first thing the dictators in Germany and the Soviet Union did was to grab all the guns, let's think about a couple of things-

(1) What about all those countries where guns are not regulated and you have civil war. It's easy to get a gun. A well-armed society is more likely to turn on itself than the state.

(2) IF it's true, than when a dictator were to come to power, first thing he should do is grab the NRA membership list.

As for the cops-

Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, Oct 23, 2003

Title: Police Chiefs Urge Congress to Retain Assault-Weapons Ban. Full Text COPYRIGHT 2003 Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

By Thomas J. Gibbons Jr., The Philadelphia Inquirer Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News

Oct. 23--Recalling officers in their commands killed or wounded in the line of duty, a group of police chiefs from across the nation called on Congress yesterday to renew the federal law outlawing military-style assault weapons.

The 10-year-old ban expires in September, and groups including the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) have been trying to persuade Congress to let the law die.

"The idea that 10 years later that we're even debating [it]... is insanity," said William Bratton, now police chief in Los Angeles and former police commissioner in New York.

Bratton was one of five big-city chiefs, including Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson, who addressed reporters on the subject at a Center City hotel near the Convention Center, where 15,000 law-enforcement officials from around the world are gathering for the 110th annual conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The chiefs, who also included Harold Hurtt of Phoenix, Richard Pennington of Atlanta, and Alex Fagan of San Francisco, spoke in front of a table laden with examples of assault weapons, including "street sweepers," 12-gauge shotguns with large-drum clips that can spray 12 shots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

"The idea that anybody in this country that would advocate allowing these types of weapons onto the streets of America is insanity," Bratton said. As recently as Saturday night, he said, two of his officers on a prowler call were assaulted by a weapon "very similar to what you see in front of you."

ANd was the assault ban effective-

"Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of
ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. "

http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/awfinal1.htm

WASHINGTON, DC -- According to a study of short-term trends since the 1994 assault weapons ban became law, the ban may be linked to declines in the criminal use of assault weapons, violent crime and the number of enforcement officers killed by assault weapons. The study, prepared by the Urban Institute for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was required by statute to be conducted within 30 months following the enactment of the assault weapons ban as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime Act. The report's authors warned that more time was needed to determine the long-term impact of the ban
States with no assault weapons ban when the federal ban took effect also experienced a 10.3% decline in homicides, compared to
no decline (0.1%) in states with assault weapons bans. It also appears that only one police officer is known to have been killed
with an assault weapon during the period from June 1995 to May
1996, compared to seven from January to May 1995, and nine in 1994."

a summary if, you're like Bradylama, in need of it-

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/March97/130nij.htm

update-
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Exactly what was banned?

"2.1. THE LEGISLATION
Effective on its enactment date, September 13, 1994, Section 110102 of Title XI banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons." It defined the banned items defined in four ways:
1. Named puns: specific rifles and handguns, available from ten importers and manufacturers: Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies (all models, popularly known as AKs); Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil models, imported by Action Arms; Beretta Ar 70 (also known as SC-70); Colt AR-15; Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, FN/FNC), SWD M-10, M-1 1, M-1 1/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; and INTRATEC
TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22;
2. Exact copies: "Copies or duplicates of the [named guns] in any caliber";
3. Revolvinq cylinder shotguns: Large-capacity shotguns, with the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 named as examples; and
4. Features-test puns: semiautomatic weapons capable of accepting detachable magazines and having at least two named features.

and why were these guns banned?

Well here are some useful anecdotes-

1989 Stockton, CA: 35 young schoolchildren shot on playground with an AK-47

1993 Langley, VA: 5 CIA employees shot with an AK-47

1993 San Francisco, CA: 9 people in a downtown law office shot with various weapons, including a TEC-DC9 assault pistol

1997 North Hollywood, CA: Police officers shot by bank robbers armed with AK-47 assault rifles

1998 Littleton, CO: 13 high school students murdered by two schoolmates armed with TEC-9 assault pistol and Hi-point Carbine assault rifle

2002 Washington, DC area: 13 people shot, 10 killed over two weeks by sniper allegedly armed with Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, a copy of the banned Colt AR-15

 

[KillaKilla]

"Gov't only disarms the populous to secure it's power"

Exept that the US is a democracy*, so we don't have to over throw the gov't. (and have never even come close to needing to)

"98 pound people cant use a shotgun"
Shotguns don't kick like a mule. A shotgun firing at 2 rd's per second at most is much easier to control than an any SMG or Assualt rifle. I personally shot trap (albiet no. 8 shot, so...) when I was 98 pounds in the 4th grade(or whenever your 98 pounbds), and it didn't kick that badly. We didn't own any 20gg's at that point, so I was using a youth break single shot 12gg. And a shotgun can be dealdly at a blocks distance with a slug, even if it isn't rifled(which would kill anything at up to and including 5 miles, even though they aren't that accurate). And sawdoffs are banned because it makes it more concealable, which is useless to someone trying to show that they can protect themselves.


" A militia is a group of non-crazie citizens who want to defend their nation from enemies and disasters."

Why do you need a gun to defend from disasters? and even if you did, we have the nat'l guard. And defend the nation from who? This nations biggest current threat is internal.
I don't want to pull this into a civil liberties debate or a 1st amendmant one, so I'm not going to get into that.

And the 1st amendment protects all others, in a different way ,but to almost the same affect that the 2nd does. And the 1st defends it more readily, and has been used in the defense of the nation since it's founding, unlike the 2nd, which only helped before the constitution was formed, when the brits wanted to disarm us to stop a succesful revolution.

And by the way, I'm form the midwest, so it isn't "New england commy french liberal terrorist bullshit". Every where but the south, including the rest of the world (see our european members) know how stupid the average southernor is. When everyone but you thinks your an idiot, you probobly are.

 

[PsychoSniper]

Welsh, AK's have BEEN illeagal (as they are automatic weapons) you neglect to mention that. If they were non full auto AK's then specify.

The fact is that if guns are banned in the US, then only the criminals (at least well connectoed ones) will have guns.

 

[welsh]

Pschyo- If AK-47's are currently illegal, it's a fairly new thing. After the assault weapons ban was passed, further expansions were made to include weapons of primarily foreign manufacture that were coming into the US.

That said, there are a lot of countries that make AK-47s or it's progeny. Many don't call it an AK-47, and not all of them are automatic.

THe problem with your argument, that if guns were banned in the US, only criminals would have it is-

(1) No one is advocating banning all weapons
(2) Even weapons that are banned in some states manage to come over the border from states in which those weapons are not banned.

So for instance a state like Virginia, where I'm from- (one of those "New england commy french liberal terrorist bullshit" places?) has looser standards than New York. Even if assault weapons were not a problem in Virginia, they become a problem in other states where the population demographics and economic circumstances are different.

That's why it becomes a matter of federal law.

It's also interesting this notion of militia as groups of individuals who privately militarize to protect their rights.

In the event of nuclear war? Ok, if a nuclear war were to happen what result- groups of armed men fighting over deminishing resources with lethal violence- and this is a good thing?

What Bradylama seems to suggest above is that we should maintain private militaries in a developed state in the event of some yet unknown or unanticipated tragedy and that assault weapons are necessary for this end.

Private militaries- think of that carefully. Fighting for who and for what causes? Christians who feel their rights are being denied by the state because they can't pray in schools? Right wings groups that don't want to pay taxes against a tyrannical state? Groups that feel threatened by foreing immigrants that might be terrorists and think the state is not doing enough? The Klan? the Nazi Party? the Jewish Defense League? The Black Panters? the Weather Underground?

John Brown helped start the Civil War by launching a raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry in a move to liberate the blacks from slavery through violence.

This is why it is important that the state maintains a protective police force, to protect internal stabilty and peaceful order. Civil Rights exist to protect the minority from the majority (especially a gun wielding majority that wants democracy through violence damn it) that would deny those rights.

That's the nature of this democracy at least.

What is it called when a person is willing to use or advocate violence in a democratic system- despotism and tyranny.

 

[Bradylama]

1997 North Hollywood, CA: Police officers shot by bank robbers armed with AK-47 assault rifles

1998 Littleton, CO: 13 high school students murdered by two schoolmates armed with TEC-9 assault pistol and Hi-point Carbine assault rifle

2002 Washington, DC area: 13 people shot, 10 killed over two weeks by sniper allegedly armed with Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, a copy of the banned Colt AR-15

Its a wonder why you would mention these, as they occured after the ban was put in place. Doesn't exactly help your argument.

In otherwords, the New Militias are a bunch of wackos.

Alright, I'll give you that. However, I still don't think our right to form militias should be impaired in any way. Just because most militia groups are filled with survivalist nuts doesn't mean that they have to be, or should.

Sorry but I think your paranoid delusions need to be taken into account in the balance of individual rights vs. public safety.

Nothing wrong with being cautious.

If you want to be part of a militia, join the national guard.

Which is an institution of the State, and misses the whole point of the militia.

Oops, but that might mean you have to go to Iraq.

Oh dear, can't have that now can I? Obviously I'm not joining the National Guard because I'm a coward, and not because I'd rather not give my life to the State.

And this- Britian is having higher crime rates because they banned guns- a bit deterministic. Could it be that there are other social-economic factors at play? AN increase in narcotics related crime perhaps? Immigration and labor problems?

Good points all. So I suppose there is no way to really tell if gun bans actually achieve results.

(1) What about all those countries where guns are not regulated and you have civil war. It's easy to get a gun. A well-armed society is more likely to turn on itself than the state.

Perhaps. But it didn't take a well-armed society to perpetrate the genocide in Rwanda.

As for the 6.7 percent reduction in gun crime, it claims in your very source that "For these reasons, our analysis considered potential ban effects on gun markets, on assault weapon use in crime, and on lethal consequences of assault weapon use. However, the statutory schedule for this study constrained our findings to short-run effects, which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects."

Its really how you want to interpret the data. To me, it means that for a while it made it harder for criminals to acquire banned weapons before organized crime could effectively setup a new distribution process.

Exept that the US is a democracy*, so we don't have to over throw the gov't. (and have never even come close to needing to)

Simply because the United States is a democracy now doesn't mean that it is incapable of changing in the future. The Weimar Republic, after all, was still a "Republic", just a Nazi one.

" A militia is a group of non-crazie citizens who want to defend their nation from enemies and disasters."

Why do you need a gun to defend from disasters? and even if you did, we have the nat'l guard. And defend the nation from who? This nations biggest current threat is internal.

I simply gave the textbook definition of Militias, not that they aren't absolutely full of crazies. You can use quote tags you know, and then you can still misquote me to try and make me look like a stupid Southerner.

Also, the government becoming totalitarian would qualify as an internal threat.

And by the way, I'm form the midwest, so it isn't "New england commy french liberal terrorist bullshit". Every where but the south, including the rest of the world (see our european members) know how stupid the average southernor is. When everyone but you thinks your an idiot, you probobly are.

Sorry for the generalization, but it wasn't "New England Commy French Liberal Terrorist Bullshit," it was New England Starbucks Liberalism bullshit. See, I thought it was New England, because usually the people who rag on the South without actually living there, are from New England, and those same people are devotees of Starbucks Liberalism, which is basically the Emo school of political thought.

Oh but hey, you're from the Midwest huh? I BET YOU LOVE CORN AND JESUS! JESUS JESUS BIBLE BELT!

It's also interesting this notion of militia as groups of individuals who privately militarize to protect their rights.

In the event of nuclear war? Ok, if a nuclear war were to happen what result- groups of armed men fighting over deminishing resources with lethal violence- and this is a good thing?

People would be doing that regardless.

Private militaries- think of that carefully. Fighting for who and for what causes? Christians who feel their rights are being denied by the state because they can't pray in schools? Right wings groups that don't want to pay taxes against a tyrannical state? Groups that feel threatened by foreing immigrants that might be terrorists and think the state is not doing enough? The Klan? the Nazi Party? the Jewish Defense League? The Black Panters? the Weather Underground?

All of which are liabilities that I'm willing to accept, as I value my freedom more than I value my safety.

This is why it is important that the state maintains a protective police force, to protect internal stabilty and peaceful order. Civil Rights exist to protect the minority from the majority (especially a gun wielding majority that wants democracy through violence damn it) that would deny those rights.

I never said that we should get rid of the police force, nor did I imply in any way, shape, or fashion that the armed should use their weapons to further their own selfish ends.

This whole time I've advocated the lack of gun bans in order to provide the people a means to protect themselves from the State. You guys can go on believing the the government will always remain democratically virtuos, but nothing lasts forever, and I'd rather not damn future generations because of a few tragedies.

Also, in a society where anyone that doesn't have a criminal record can posess a firearm, there isn't much room for an "armed majority" since pretty much everyone is armed. The "armed majority" is, in effect, the people.

 

[Colt]

I'm coming into this kind of late (though I've read the entire thread) so I apologize beforehand if I seem to repeat some things. One can't keep track of everything said within a thread.


First, some clarifications on terminology that were debated earlier. There are two ways to describe a weapon as being "automatic". You can either describe it in its modes of fire or in its system of operation. Now, many modern weapons are automatic because they fire, strip a round from the magazine, chamber it, and reset the firing mechanism. Everything from your Colt M1911 .45 to the Browning M2 .50 heavy machinegun are thus automatic weapons.

What most people refer to as being automatic though describes their mode of fire. Automatic (including burst fire) is when the trigger is depressed and held resulting in cyclic fire until the magazine is emptied or trigger released. Semi-automatic weapons are those which you depress the trigger and weapon fires one round of ammunition and reloads. The trigger must be released for the firing mechanism to reset and another round fired. Depending upon the design of a firearm, it can be easier to make it either automatic or semi-automatic and more complex to make it selectable. It all depends on the firearm.


As far as the Fabrique Nationale FAL and the AK-47 not being good for anything but killing people... I'm sorry, but that's not right. The FAL fires the 7.62mm NATO cartridge which began life as the .308" Winchester, a round made for hunting. The same thing occurred with the .223" Remington when it became the 5.56mm NATO standard cartridge. While the 7.62mm M43 cartridge that the AK-47 uses did not start out as a hunting cartridge, it makes a superb deer and small game cartridge. An SKS for example would make an excellent "brush" gun.

If I myself were to go hunting with an AK-47 (or SKS) I would use a 10 round short magazine as the 30 round magazines that are standard would be awkward and cumbersome for hunting. People like to quibble "What do you need an automatic rifle for hunting?" Err... I wouldn't carry an automatic rifle for hunting. I would want something that is a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 in this case. If you have to spray something with bullets to kill it, just get a shotgun and hunt rabbit with 00 buckshot.


Someone made the comment of a submachinegun being an assault rifle firing a pistol cartridge. No, a submachinegun is a carbine firing pistol ammunition and can (usually) be set to automatic fire. People can legally own carbines and they are in fact good for small game (or getting rid of pests) and home defense. They are more accurate than a pistol and handy but don't over-penetrate like a .30-06 hunting rifle would. As to things like the TEC-9 pistols... They're pieces of shit. Badly made, bad accuracy, poor trigger. Crap. I wouldn't own one on principle and most people I know wouldn't either.

Why would I want an AK-47 or a carbine that fires pistol ammunition for home defense over the almighty shotgun?

I've just returned home from a day of deer hunting with my young son. The deer is in the freezer to be butchered in the morning and the shotgun is resting in the corner with the rest of the hunting gear, to be cleaned in the morning. It's 10:23, I'm tired, want to go to bed. Brushing my teeth in the bathroom, I hear the sound of rending wood and breaking glass from the living room. Running across the hall and into the bedroom where my wife is still sleeping I grab the shotgun and hurriedly load some shells into it and step out into the hallway. There, at the end of it, stands a man in a mask holding a short crowbar. As I raise the shotgun to aim it at the intruder my son steps out into the hallway from his room in front of the man. The criminal seeing me bringing the shotgun to bear steps toward my son. Now, what do I do? Fire and hope to not hit my son with the buckshot, attempt to assault the criminal with the shotgun, or let him grab my son and put me in a situation where I have to disarm myself? With something that is more accurate I could have shot and not worried about hitting my son and know that I can simply pull the trigger again if need be.

You might point out that I could use slugs in the shotgun but that defeats the purpose of the shotgun in the first place, that you don't need to aim. What would you do?

Hmm... Militias. Would I join one? Yes, definitely. At least if it were of the non-survivalist type. I believe in the militia in its original sense, the defense of the populace in case of invasion or against a tyrannical government. Having Saturday night meetings at a hunting lodge in the woods is well... Eh, no comment. The National Guard, in its modern form, is more like a reserve army for the federal army than anything. See Iraq. It is not a militia in the traditional sense.

If I were in the militia, I would hope to God that I would never get a call on the phone one night to meet the next morning on the local football field. If it came down to a citizenry militia having to form, I would be very worried. Think of what the enemy forces would have to go through (the entire US military for example) to start landing invasion forces. I would imagine that we would probably use a tactical nuke before that and take out the invasion force.

I remember an article in the paper from a few years ago, here in Anchorage, that covered a Russian destroyer, or some such vessel, that was in port and was giving tours. As far as I recall the reporter asked why the Soviet Union had never attempted an invasion of the United States. The Russian officer replied with something to the effect of "It would be pure foolishness to attempt a ground invasion of a country with such a well-armed populace." Of course, this is ignoring nuclear weapons and other WMDs. It is however poignant as to why people think we should continue to bear arms in our "modern" age.


Alright, that's enough rambling. Replying to four pages of a thread like this is a real bitch. No offense meant to anyone. - Colt


Edit: Damned typos.

 

[Makdaam]

Something about AKs, AK is not always AK-74 or 47

Here are descs of most AK based arms: http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models.html

This hunter rifle for example http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka287.html is great for civ use and was made to fit Polish gun laws (the barrel isn't threaded, but can be replaced and it's semi-auto, a modified trigger mechanism) and it's using a 7.62x39 cartridge.

But this Assault rifle http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka100.html should never get into civilian hand IMO. It was designed only to kill - 5.45x39 cart. with assymetrical threads give the "wandering bullet" efect - the bullet spins in various directions during flight and shreds all tissues that it goes through causing internal bleeding, it may enter the body near the belly button and exit near the shoulder blade. However it's inaccurate at larger distances due to spinning and is quite useless for hunters (unless the animal comes close or you fire a burst in the general direction of the target).

So if anyone wants to talk about AKs, tell us precisely which kind of AK do you mean Unfortunately in most cases the barrels/trigger mechanisms/other parts are interchangeable with other types of AKs :\

This whole time I've advocated the lack of gun bans in order to provide the people a means to protect themselves from the State. You guys can go on believing the the government will always remain democratically virtuos, but nothing lasts forever, and I'd rather not damn future generations because of a few tragedies.

As I said before you won't be able to overthrow any US government due to laws that allow the government to lock everyone they want up in cas of an (still not clearly defined) emergency. Even the opposing politicians. And organised military force might be enough to stop militias.

 

[Claw]

First, the United States is a huge country, with many more people than many countries.

Which perfeclty explains a high amount of homicides. But homicide rates are relative values, so there is no logic in claiming a larger population would have higher rates unless you can successfully claim that violence increases on a progressive scale.

Secondly, we have many very, very dense cities.

You gotta be kidding. There are many very, very dense cities in Europe. The newest data I could find quickly (~2001) even showed the US cities far behind Europe's. Even if more recent trends indicate the US catching up, US cities are not remarkably dense.

Dense population =more violence.

Allright, I'll give you this one. The population of the US probably is really dense.

Thirdly, the USA is basically a country of all nationalities, there is less of a defining stereotype of Americans as there is of, say, Japanese.

You are right. There are two: Black Gangsta and White Fatass.
More seriously though, the claim to racial disparity is just cliché.
In Europe a large amount of different races and nationalties lives in a comparable space. If there is a more specific stereotype of the French this is mere because it ignores the actual diversity of the population. And the "worst" thing is people from all over Europe and beyond keep crossing the borders, because there are no thousands of miles of desert seperating the population centers.
Why, I keep seeing Dutch cars on German highways and I can tell you I think of violence on a regular basis when I meet one of them, they are among the most reckless drivers here.

Because we, as a nation, encompass so many political, economic, racial, national, and religious groups, higher violence is inevitable.

Except that isn't a unique feature of your nation at all.

The Weimar Republic, after all, was still a "Republic", just a Nazi one.

Where did you pull that nonsense from? Your previous point was correct, but this doesn't support it besides making you sound stupid. The Nazis do not represent the Republic but it's demise.

 

[John Uskglass]

They played at keeping the constitution for a few years, as I remember, but gave it up prior to war with America.

 

[Colt]

First, the United States is a huge country, with many more people than many countries.

Which perfeclty explains a high amount of homicides. But homicide rates are relative values, so there is no logic in claiming a larger population would have higher rates unless you can successfully claim that violence increases on a progressive scale.

I think what he was trying to point out was the the US is a very large country with a lot of people from different places. More spread out, more people, more differences. Less compact and less uniform so you have places like California on the west coast and states on the east coat with different makeups. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in Europe at all, just that distance does make a difference. That might not be what he was getting at but that's what I got from it.

As to the different models of Kalashnikov, I know about them and about the AK-74. That's why I specified the AK-47 because it fires the 7.62x39mm cartridge. The round the AK-74 fires would only be good for small game really in my opinion.

with assymetrical threads give the "wandering bullet" efect - the bullet spins in various directions during flight and shreds all tissues that it goes through causing internal bleeding, it may enter the body near the belly button and exit near the shoulder blade.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here... But as far as I know, you can't have asymmetrical rifling, if that's what you're trying to describe. Maybe the asymmetrical design of the slug? If so, I think I did read something about that but that's just the cartridge. You wouldn't use those in hunting. - Colt

Edit: The Radom Hunter is a nice looking weapon by the way but I would prefer something with a capacity of more than 5 rounds. Otherwise there's no real point to the detachable box magazine. Why not just make something that can use chargers? I know why mechanically but still...