AWB renewal

[LethalWolfe]

So the Assault Weapons Ban is about to sunset. Opinions?

Here's my 2 cent take. Let it Die. The AWB ranks up there w/"duck 'n cover" from the 50's and the color-coded terror alert threat system thingy. It's empty legislation designed to appear helpful to the public but in reality it does little more than zilch.


And, please, try to stay on the specific topic at hand (the AWB). I don't want this to balloon into another 2nd Amend. debate (although I know it will get there eventually).


Lethal

[takao]

what weapons would fall under this ban ?

personally i don' have a problem with that ban but hey my opinion doesn't count because i neither have a gun nor do i understand reasons for having one

[LethalWolfe]

what weapons would fall under this ban ?

personally i don' have a problem with that ban but hey my opinion doesn't count because i neither have a gun nor do i understand reasons for having one

Nor do you live in ths US. :p


By and large weapons that had certain cosmetic features were banned. The features were things that made the weapons look "military." For example, bayonet lugs were one of the flagged features. So to make an "okay" version of the weapon all you had was remove the bayonet lug.

It's like if you were trying to stop SUV sales by banning vehicles w/luggage racks.

The intent was pretty obvious but the execution was pointless.


Lethal

[zimv20]

By and large weapons that had certain cosmetic features were banned. The features were things that made the weapons look "military." For example, bayonet lugs were one of the flagged features. So to make an "okay" version of the weapon all you had was remove the bayonet lug.

weren't there more important things banned, like the "automatic" part of automatic rifles?

[trebblekicked]

am i the only one who thought this was a thread about the average white band?

[zimv20]

am i the only one who thought this was a thread about the average white band?
<obscure>
i thought maybe brian kernighan decided to drop his last name
</obscure>

[LethalWolfe]

weren't there more important things banned, like the "automatic" part of automatic rifles?

By "automatic" I assume you mean "fully automatic" (as opposed to semi-automatic). If that assumption is correct then the answer is, "no." The AWB effects semi-automatic assualt weapons. Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) have been heavily regulated sense 1934.

On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.


The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

Colt AR-15;

Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;

Steyr AUG;

INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;

revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.


The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.




The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:


Rifles:

Folding/telescoping stock


Protruding pistol grip


Bayonet mount


Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor


Grenade launcher



Pistols:

Magazine outside grip


Threaded muzzle


Barrel shroud


Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more


Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon



Shotguns:

Folding/telescoping stock


Protruding pistol grip


Detachable magazine capacity


Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb


Lethal

[blackfox]

...The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:


Rifles:

Folding/telescoping stock


Protruding pistol grip


Bayonet mount


Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor


Grenade Launcher


(emphasis mine)

Well, I am glad I will able to get that feature again...those groundhogs better watch out...

Maybe I am missing something, but the weapon types/features banned seem like a good idea to me, however imperfect the law is...

how is no restrictions better than the AWB? I am afraid I don't understand...but then again I do not understand while anyone would need a grenade launcher or fully-automatic/semi-automatic weapon...

I am confused here...

[takao]

sounds rather rational to me...

hm i don't know about most rifles mentioned ... personally i only had to handle the austrian Steyr-Mannlicher StG77 (full automatic version of the AUG with army barrel and olive-green coloured stock)
to convert that gun into a semi automatic and back you need less than 10 seconds because you have to exchange the 'hammer-unit' (the thing in the stock)
so the risk of the gun getting illegally converted is not small
and if you can't get your hand on a new 'hammer-unit' you can still manipulate the semi-automatic one to fire full auto only

and sport shooting / hunting with the AUG ?

edit: oh i missed the grenade launcher thing quite amusing
and the austrian army don't use bajonetts because they say that today they are unneeded ... and if an army has no use for bajonetts why do some civilians in the US 'need' one ? ;

[Leo Hubbard]

edit: oh i missed the grenade launcher thing quite amusing
and the austrian army don't use bajonetts because they say that today they are unneeded ... and if an army has no use for bajonetts why do some civilians in the US 'need' one ? ;
And Army doesn't need bayonetts? :eek:

[zimv20]

By "automatic" I assume you mean "fully automatic" (as opposed to semi-automatic). If that assumption is correct then the answer is, "no." The AWB effects semi-automatic assualt weapons. Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) have been heavily regulated sense 1934.

thanks for the clarification. on that list, i see many things about which i have no problem being outlawed.

anyone here a hunter? i'm interested in knowing which things on that list interfere w/ hunting, and why.

[IJ Reilly]

am i the only one who thought this was a thread about the average white band?

Actually, it works for both. (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=706644&selectedItemId=706620)

[LethalWolfe]

What strikes me as pointless is the "...the 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:" part. It's unless bloat. It's hollow. It's "feel good" legislation. It's "Hey, we think there is trouble brewing so we are now at Alert Level Orange." What does that really do for me? Nothing. But hey, at least I feel like it does something.

Weapon X is illegal if it has a collapsing stock AND a bayonet lug. But it's legal if it only has a collapsing stock. Is the lethality of weapon X increased because it has both those additions, and decreased because it doesn't?

What makes military assault rifles so deadly are the trained military personal that use them. Not the fact that they have protruding pistol grips AND bayonet lugs.

I don't think we'll ever hear this line from a cop, "The suspect put up a fight and a couple of officers were injured. But thank god he didn't have a collapsing stock and a pistol grip on that rifle. The ****** really woulda hit the fan then."

I understand the intent of the law but in reality it largly regulates the appearnce of certain types of firearms and only hampers their functionality in a very small degree (if at all).


Takao, just a useless fact. IIRC, there was a US bayonet charge during the first Gulf War. Military history is full of "useless" tech and tactics that isn't quite as useless as people thought.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

Okay, so it's a pretty dumb law. Who's in favor of an effective one?

[Bobcat37]

I don't think we'll ever hear this line from a cop, "The suspect put up a fight and a couple of officers were injured. But thank god he didn't have a collapsing stock and a pistol grip on that rifle. The ****** really woulda hit the fan then."

LOL @ that comment.

Anyway, a complete repeal of the law, or at the very least a better one in its place, would be a great idea.

[Desertrat]

Well, the ban was quite effective in reducing the number of drive-by bayonettings...

Testimony by people from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) at the time of hearings on the proposed ban stated that the targeted rifles were used in some two percent or less of crimes involving firearms.

Insofar as utility in reducing crime, zilch, zip, nada. Rifles without the cosmetic features but otherwise identical are still being sold--and are still rarely used in crime. Further, these rifles function no differently than any other semi-automatic rifle.

The AW ban is strictly feel-good "We've done something!" legislation serving no useful anti-crime purpose. The only result was to increase the prices of good-used pre-ban rifles.

zim, a guy over at http://www.thehighroad.org posted some pictures in the Hunting forum of himself, his "AK" and a feral hog he'd killed. In general, the 7.62x39 cartridge is a minimally effective round for deer hunting. I will not allow anybody to use a rifle firing that cartridge, at my mule deer hunt camp. It is inadequate for clean, ethical kills on those larger deer. The performance of the cartridge is just below that of the venerable .30-30.

Personally, I think they're ugly and clunky and cheap looking. They're somewhat difficult to aim accurately. The triggers are junky. The plus side is that they're quite rugged and reliable; moreso than the AR-15 or the Ruger Mini-14. For those who don't mind the aesthetics, they're excellent plinking rifles for entertainment at a firing range, and excellent as an inexpensive item for home defense if needed.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Banning a weapon because of how scary it looks seem stupid to me. Besides, if you want to waste your money on ammo for your fully automatic toy be my guest. Just pick up your damn shell casings.

The AWB is totally feel-good legislation. Let it die, and spend your time working to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.

[LethalWolfe]

Okay, so it's a pretty dumb law. Who's in favor of an effective one?


I always am.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

I always am.

Suggest away...

[LethalWolfe]

Suggest away...


See now we're going where I didn't want this thread to go. But sense the thread seems about played out anyway...

Here's my idea (it's not very specific so feel free to flesh out parts if you like). Focus on socio-economic problems that are the root cause of the vast majority of crime instead of the tools used in commiting those crimes.

Now, is it your turn to make a suggestion or do you just tell me what's wrong w/my idea? :p


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

See now we're going where I didn't want this thread to go. But sense the thread seems about played out anyway...

Here's my idea (it's not very specific so feel free to flesh out parts if you like). Focus on socio-economic problems that are the root cause of the vast majority of crime instead of the tools used in commiting those crimes.

Now, is it your turn to make a suggestion or do you just tell me what's wrong w/my idea? :p

No, it was an honest effort to give you a chance to state your case. I have to say I though, since you expressed the belief that the existing law is dumb, that I expected you to have some more sensible scheme of your own for keeping heavy military weaponry out of the hands of non-military personnel. Are you saying this isn't a concern of yours at all?

Also, I don't see why you didn't want the thread to go in this direction. This is what naturally follows from your original question.

[zimv20]

Here's my idea (it's not very specific so feel free to flesh out parts if you like). Focus on socio-economic problems that are the root cause of the vast majority of crime instead of the tools used in commiting those crimes.

yes, but...

do you see the widening gap between the "rich" and "poor" helping or hindering that effort?

in chicago, there's been a ban on handguns for years (cops et. al. excluded, of course). good or bad? the murder rate is lower than it used to be...

[Bobcat37]

Read a chapter about banning handguns in London (I think) in the book Bias. Basically stated how banning handguns seemed to only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. If a criminal wants a handgun, he'll still get it.

As I recall murders ROSE in england after the handgun ban, not sure why the results were different for Chicago, but maybe there was more to it there?

I'll look up the chapter in the book and post more specifics later, but for now I must get to bed.

If I'm wrong about any of this I'll make sure to correct myself.

[LethalWolfe]

No, it was an honest effort to give you a chance to state your case. I have to say I though, since you expressed the belief that the existing law is dumb, that I expected you to have some more sensible scheme of your own for keeping heavy military weaponry out of the hands of non-military personnel. Are you saying this isn't a concern of yours at all?


Civilians don't have legal access to heavy military weapons. And, honestly, the weapons and cosmetic accessories covered by the AWB don't concern me nearly as much as someone w/criminal intent.

I dislike the AWB for the false sense of security it gives people. I dislike the AWB because it makes the population at large feel like the government is addressing an issue when, in fact, they are not. Geewhiz, now weapons that are involved in about 2% of gun crimes are marginally more difficult to come by. Can you honestly say that a law that, by and large, does nothing more than keep a weapon from looking like a military rifle is worth while?

Even the eye-catching "grenade launcher" part is hollow because 1. actually getting a grenade is next to impossible because of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (so this is another cosmetic ban), and 2. You can still buy a weapon w/a grenade launcher on it as long as it doesn't have a folding stock, bayonet lug, pistol grip or a threaded muzzle. Does that make any sense at all?

"hmmm... I really want to blow the ****** out of my office for firing me, and I was lucky enough to get this grenade off the black market, but I've always wanted a rifle w/a folding stock. Hmmm... well crap. I'll save the grenade for another time 'cause that folding stock is just too cool."

I sure feel safer knowing no one can legally purchase a military looking rifle...

Again, I'd like to see all this time and money directed toward treating the cause instead of the symptom.

Also, I don't see why you didn't want the thread to go in this direction. This is what naturally follows from your original question.

What I meant was I didn't want this to balloon into just another gun/anti-gun debate. I wanted the discussion to stay AWB centric. Those who think it's been effective say why they think it's been effective, and those who think it's ineffective saying why they think that.


Lethal

[zimv20]

the handgun ban took effect in 1982.

here are the questions i find compelling:
1. since the ban, has the overall murder rate gone down?
2. since the ban, has gun violence (incl. murder) decreased?
3. since the ban, has other crime increased? (the deterrent argument)

here is some data from this Dec 2002 Chicago Tribune piece (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0212180143dec18,1,5512866.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-utl)

Exploring a goal for this city's murder rate first requires a look at reasons why lowering the numbers won't be simple.

- At the top of that list is Chicago's inordinate abundance of violent narcotics gangs. Owing to the city's history of segregated housing, sizeable expanses of Chicago are impoverished and vulnerable to crime. Gangs control extensive turf and the lucrative drug income it produces. Some customers live in those city neighborhoods; others drive in to buy dope and then slip back to their suburbs. Police surveillance tapes of retail drug stings usually show drug users whose faces project a rainbow of skin colors.

Many homicide experts and police officials estimate that if they could know the motives behind every slaying in Chicago, they'd find that half to two-thirds of all murders here trace to the gangs and the fresh generations of young Yummy Sandifers they recruit. That efficient process of renewal testifies to the failures--or at best the limited successes--of parents, schools, churches, local communities, civic groups and Chicago writ large to steer kids away from the gangs.
[...]
A gun takes the work out of murder--an otherwise more challenging enterprise, typically reliant on knives, fists or blunt objects. "We've armed the immature," says criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University. "It doesn't take much strength to pull a trigger." The impact on violence rates is exponential: "A 14-year-old with a gun is more dangerous than a 44-year-old," Fox says. "The latter may be a better aim but the former is more trigger-happy."

Fox and researcher Maria Tcherni manage a proprietary database that includes virtually all of the roughly 528,000 U.S. murders of the last 26 years. Their computer analysis (done at the Tribune's request) of Chicago murders over time confirms that younger killers cause extraordinary mayhem: They are more likely not only to use guns, but also to slay strangers rather than people they know. (Not that homicides often are entirely random; as a rule, murderers of each race kill others of their own race.)

One more chilling statistic: For every gun killing here, eight other people are shot but survive. Last year Chicago had 514 gun killings (of a total of 665 homicides), plus 4,179 firearms cases in which someone shot (and hit) someone else.

(emphasis mine)

so there's some data arguing for the handgun ban. guns make killing easier (duh), and violence to strangers is more likely.

i'm having trouble locating good data for chicago for the years, say 1970-2003. bah.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not at all satisfied with window-dressing laws, and I'm prepared to take your word for it that this one is. But I'm not convinced that automatic weapons are not military use. Where do you draw the line? Is even asking this question "anti-gun?"

[LethalWolfe]

Zim, handguns and such is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

IJ, I think we might be having a language hang up. There's no hard and fast rule, but assault weapons are typically considered small arms. "Heavy weapons" would be stuff like an anti-tank weapon.

Dirty dealers selling hand guns illegally are a significantly greater problem than assualt weapons but which one gets the head lines? The focus? The attention? What I care about is what will bennifet people the best. The AWD makes it illegal to buy weapons used in 2% of gun crime. So lawful citizens will no longer have them. Does that keep them away from unlawful citizens?

Aprox. 70% of guns used in crimes are purchased illegally. Dirty dealers account for nearly half of the illegal gun sales in the US. So, it's relatively safe to say that 1/3 of the guns used in crimes are illegally purchased from these dealers. 33% of the problem vs. 2% of the problem. Even if the AWB was a compete success is it really that big a deal? All the media coverage and "we did it" pats on the back for 2% of the problem. Seems more like politics than problem solving, IMO.

I'm not against gun laws. I'm against ineffective, politically motivated "solutions" that unnessicarily<sp?> restrict our 2nd Amend. rights.

Not trying to blow anyone off but I'm going outta town this weekend and will revisit the thread when I get back Sunday or Monday.

Have a good weekend all.


Lethal

BTW, I'm getting my numbers from a previous thread about gun control. The numbers are from a few different sources so my deductions shouldn't be considered "hard and fast" but I think they are good enough to get a ball park idea. Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=78092&page=4&pp=25)

[Desertrat]

IJ, we got us a terminology problem here. The ban does not at all address automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is of the machine-gun variety, where the gun keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger back. The banned critters are all semi-automatic, where it takes a separate pull of the trigger for each shot.

The focus of the ban is on those rifles of the general "AK" design. The rifle that's the symbol of the resistance groups in Palestine, for instance. Also included are variants of the AR-15, the semi-auto version of the military's M16, and a few of the rifles which happen to use the 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) cartridge.

The mechanisms of the banned rifles are not particularly different from the miscellaneous semi-auto hunting rifles. Semi-auto hunting rifles have been around since roughly 1908 or so. They include such as the Winchester Model 100 (I inherited a 1950s version from my uncle.), the Remington 742 (I bought a good-used version for hunting in the close cover of NW Florida.) and the Ruger Mini-14 (Introduced in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and a great coyote gun or "plinker".

The military cartridges used in the so-called assault weapons are not as powerful as most hunting cartridges. The .223 of the AR-15 is limited to coyotes or smaller animals. The AK round is almost as powerful as the .30-30, first introduced in 1894. The 7.62 NATO round is about 90% as powerful as the .30-'06, first introduced in 1906; it's a good deer cartridge but is not the best for elk.

Regardless, the focus should be on criminal misuse, and the AW ban does not at all address this.

'Rat

[krimson]

i say let the bill die.. though being in CA, doesn't help, esp with things like the "Hollywood Shootout" in our history.. but criminals aren't usually the ones buying those kinds of weapons through legitimate means.

We're also limited to 10 rds... i can't even sell my grandfathered 40/30/20 rds clips to anyone in CA if i wanted to even though, they were purchased before the ban took effect.

I would like to build a mate for tammy (http://home.earthlink.net/~krimson122/images/tammy01.jpg).

[Desertrat]

Link didn't work.

"tammy"? I hope that's a galfriend. :D I gotta admit that my favorite hunting rifle of the last 30-some years is generally referred to as "Old Pet", but that's mostly a joke since I started moderating on an RKBA website a few years back...

'Rat

[krimson]

link fixed :)

[Desertrat]

Horrors! An EBR!*

That's a lot of glass for a Shorty. :)

I had a Bushmaster Match Target for a while. Meddled around with it a bit; it was a half-MOA shooter. Better than I could do with Old Pet, in reality. But, I'm too much of a traditionalist to get away from my cherished bolt-actions, I guess.

'Rat

* Evil Black Rifle

[krimson]

it's fun to plink with, but i haven't broken it in since i built this upper.

though, my next will probably be a FN SPR in 308, since the 223 is really a short range plinker.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, we got us a terminology problem here. The ban does not at all address automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is of the machine-gun variety, where the gun keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger back. The banned critters are all semi-automatic, where it takes a separate pull of the trigger for each shot.

I don't know if we have a terminology problem so much as I'm asking what sorts of weapons you think should be banned from private ownership, and why the line should be drawn at that particular point.

[Desertrat]

Sorry, IJ. I was still seeing "automatic weapons" in the context of the AW ban, where they don't fit.

Ban? "Line in the sand"? Why? What's the point?

BATFE controls all full-auto weapons and all rifles of greater than 50-caliber (half-inch) bore diameter. To own one means the approval of the local sheriff or police chief; a clean record with the FBI, and one's mugshot and fingerprints on file. As well, there are restrictions as to storage and transport and personal control by the owner. BATFE can, without a warrant, demand to inspect the weapon at least once a year in one's place of storage (and more, if there are complaints). Same for "silencers" (suppressors).

For rifles, handguns and shotguns now unregulated as to size and style, there's little point to having concern. A single shot .22 is deadly to 100 yards or so.

Magazine-capacity restrictions? Why? With any reasonable training and practice, one can fire a shot, replace the magazine and fire another shot in about one second. Guys now are practicing to try and beat Jerry Miculek, who can put six rounds from a revolver into a playing card at ten yards; reload the revolver and repeat the sequence in a total elapsed time of maybe three seconds. Or, watch a guy like John Satterwhite throw seven claybirds into the air, by hand, and then shoot them all, individually, with a pump shotgun before they hit the ground. Revolvers and pump shotguns have been around for well over 100 years.

There's excitement against the .50 caliber rifles built by Barret and others, particularly in California. Duh. These things run some four feet in length and typically weigh around thirty pounds. They cost somewhere north of $3,000, commonly, with ammo running $1.50 to $3.00 per round. They're used in long-range match competition, mostly. Organized clubs, mostly in the more wide-open western states where there is room to shoot. They're generally illegal for hunting.

About the only changes in our approaches to control of firearms that I can see which might actually accomplish anything would be sanctions against irresponsibility in storage. This would reduce theft, the primary source of street-crime firearms, and reduce accidental deaths of children from its present level of some 100 per year.

'Rat

[krimson]

IIRC, LA County has already banned 50 cals. :(

[IJ Reilly]

Wait a second, 'Rat. Are you saying that no type of weapon should be excluded from private ownership? I mean, no matter what they cost or weigh, a .50 caliber gun is one piece of pretty heavy artillery. You could stop any vehicle short of a well-armored tank with one.

[gekko513]

Suggest away...
Ban any weapon that is not:

A: Intended for hunting, and in the care of a park ranger.

or

B: In the care of military personell.

or

C: In the care of law enforcement.

[mactastic]

Ah here we go into the boundaries of the second amendment again...

[Chip NoVaMac]

So the Assault Weapons Ban is about to sunset. Opinions?

Here's my 2 cent take. Let it Die. The AWB ranks up there w/"duck 'n cover" from the 50's and the color-coded terror alert threat system thingy. It's empty legislation designed to appear helpful to the public but in reality it does little more than zilch.


And, please, try to stay on the specific topic at hand (the AWB). I don't want this to balloon into another 2nd Amend. debate (although I know it will get there eventually).


Lethal

Personally I wish we has a SCOTUS that respected the words of of our founding fathers. If you want to own a gun (weapon) you have to be part of the militia (and most definitions define that as our present day NG, despite the money the nRA pours into the pockets of the politicians).

[Leo Hubbard]

Personally I wish we has a SCOTUS that respected the words of of our founding fathers. If you want to own a gun (weapon) you have to be part of the militia (and most definitions define that as our present day NG, despite the money the nRA pours into the pockets of the politicians).

(Pronunciation Key)mi·li·tia Listen: [ m-lsh ]
n.

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0295000.html

That would include every citizen in the US between the ages of 18 and 60.


We have several militia's in this country.

[takao]

i didn't know those 12,7mm (.50) rounds and rifles are allowed in the US ...to call that "small arms" is a little bit ...amusing

i guess if it was allowed americans would even buy some tank defense guns and long range flaks or even tanks ;)

most of the things mentioned in this ban has never been allowed here _ever_ (actually semi-automatic rifles are partially banned i think...even for hunters...)

[mactastic]

That would include every citizen in the US between the ages of 18 and 60.


Are you suggesting we should take 'Rat's guns away? He might not approve of that...

(my apologies 'Rat if you are still under 60; I think you are past that though) ;)

[IJ Reilly]

i didn't know those 12,7mm (.50) rounds and rifles are allowed in the US ...to call that "small arms" is a little bit ...amusing

i guess if it was allowed americans would even buy some tank defense guns and long range flaks or even tanks ;)

Anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles, anti-personal mines, rocket propelled grenade launchers... I'm asking a serious question here. Where should the line be drawn?

[mactastic]

Anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles, anti-personal mines, rocket propelled grenade launchers... I'm asking a serious question here. Where should the line be drawn?

Well we're gonna need all that stuff when the government comes to get us. Plus a large cannon or two, and maybe a few old MIG fighters. I hear you can get those shipped here from overseas...

Besides, haven't we been here before?

[IJ Reilly]

Well we're gonna need all that stuff when the government comes to get us. Plus a large cannon or two, and maybe a few old MIG fighters. I hear you can get those shipped here from overseas...

Besides, haven't we been here before?

Where? In this debate? Probably. I've asked this question numerous times before, but never seem to get a straight answer.

Yes, a person could buy an old MIG fighter if they had the cash (I've seen them flown at air shows). They're stripped of weaponry and advanced electronics, sadly, and would be no match for government's hardware even if they were armed.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, mac, I turned 70 on July 6th. Helluva party! We had no trouble floating the keg, and the barbecue was great! :)

takao, the .50s are mostly single-shot rifles costing $2,000+ to $3,500. They're used in gun-club competion, mostly. Barrett makes a semi-auto for around $5,500 or so. (Barrett also sells these to the US military.) Then, add some $700 to $1,200 for a telescopic sight. They're generally some four feet in length and weigh from 24 to 35 pounds, give or take a little.

They're not exactly the choice for casual street crime...As far as destructiveness of oil tanks or suchlike, in terrorist fashion, they're no more effective than the higher-power hunting rifles. (E.g., .460 Weatherby.) Once again, folks want to legislate "ugly", as they did in LA (which buys them) and as the California legislature is considering.

Odd: Re the comment about only LEOs and military possessing certain types of firearms, when I was 22 years old in Korea, I was in command of a halftrack with four full-auto .50s. 2,400 rounds per minute capability and I was the autonomous Boss. As a civilian of more mature age, gekko believes I'm not to be trusted with some sort of rifle? Duh?

How would I be safer if LEOs had guns, but I couldn't? Would gekko support the tax-dollar requirements for 100% reliable security for me against any violent criminal? As far as responsibility and misuse, why have I been a risk for the last fifty years, but a 20-year-old LEO is not? Competency and a sense of responsibility are not CREATED by any uniform.

gekko, SCOTUS has decreed that I have a civil right to live. Therefore I have a civil right to be able to protect that civil right. Got to, or the right to live is rendered meaningless. Please explain to me how, absent physical means, I can excercise my rights? (Many would say that one's right to live is a human right, inherent and not something granted by a government. What do you believe?)

The idea of any sort of ban is wishful thinking wherein is the notion that things "cause" problems. Humans cause problems, and there are multitudes of things to use. Box cutters come to mind...

Cheapshot: Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the knife/fork/spoon for obesity.

:), 'Rat

[gekko513]

gekko, SCOTUS has decreed that I have a civil right to live. Therefore I have a civil right to be able to protect that civil right. Got to, or the right to live is rendered meaningless. Please explain to me how, absent physical means, I can excercise my rights? (Many would say that one's right to live is a human right, inherent and not something granted by a government. What do you believe?)
I think your life would be safer without guns all over the place. Anyway, my suggestion was not really serious, because I know it's not going to happen, but it's what I wish for.

[mactastic]

There is no doubt that you have a right to live. The question is, where do you draw the line in your right to defend the right to live? If a guy looks at me funny, should i waste him? Can I use chemical weaponry to defend myself? So if we stipulate that there is a line which can be drawn, I don't see how you can be so sure guns are on one side of that line or another.

Personally, I have no problems with guns being on the legal side. The question the becomes what else you allow, as well as how we define a gun. Mortars and howitzers and such are just large guns.

Myself, I'm happy knowing my body is a pretty lethal weapon on it's own. While I'm perfectly comfortable with a gun around, I wouldn't want to have to rely on it for pretection.

[takao]

Yeah, mac, I turned 70 on July 6th. Helluva party! We had no trouble floating the keg, and the barbecue was great! :)

takao, the .50s are mostly single-shot rifles costing $2,000+ to $3,500. They're used in gun-club competion, mostly. Barrett makes a semi-auto for around $5,500 or so. (Barrett also sells these to the US military.) Then, add some $700 to $1,200 for a telescopic sight. They're generally some four feet in length and weigh from 24 to 35 pounds, give or take a little.

They're not exactly the choice for casual street crime...As far as destructiveness of oil tanks or suchlike, in terrorist fashion, they're no more effective than the higher-power hunting rifles. (E.g., .460 Weatherby.) Once again, folks want to legislate "ugly", as they did in LA (which buys them) and as the California legislature is considering.

Odd: Re the comment about only LEOs and military possessing certain types of firearms, when I was 22 years old in Korea, I was in command of a halftrack with four full-auto .50s. 2,400 rounds per minute capability and I was the autonomous Boss. As a civilian of more mature age, gekko believes I'm not to be trusted with some sort of rifle? Duh?


i guess everbody knows that you can handle guns good enough and can be trusted ...the problem is that there are more than enough who neither you and me trust ...

about the weapons laws ..our law is somehow floating...officially the law holds "weapons/material of military usage" and only some certainexamples are made: for example MPs and MGs are pretty obvious, but pump-guns and certain semiautomatics fall into that category as well (and easy to take apart guns)...this is category A
category B are high restricted guns including:the rest of the semi-automatics,hand arms and even some bolt action rifles...for those you need _a lo_t of permissions and it takes 6 weeks untill you get your gun
category c is bolt action hunting rifles and some other hunting rifles
D are those 1-2 shot rifles with those shotgun rounds and smooth barrels..for those you only need a permission for taking them with you outside of hunting

and of course rifles need to be at least 90cm long

the 12,7mm round is military material and banned
and a lot of other heavy rounds as well (including the desert eagle for example..not a rifle but still banned)

for the prices ...i don't know....i only rember the price which our army pays for one StG-77 (the AUG): converted to $: around 380 but they increased the price in the last years according to our staff seargent

but i had rarely to do with the bigger calibers ..we had 2 MG-74s in our cellar beneath those 300 StGs and 30 P-80s (for 7 privates,11 privates first class, 4 corporals,17 seargents, and 3 officers) .. 1 12,7 MG , 1 small gun for shooting those little metal things (no firearm) and one german WW2 Kar-98K with bajonet...so with your halftrack you would have outgunned us ;) (even more,after we somehow lost a very important part of one of the MGs ...the typical case of "trying to put the gun back together and recognize that something is missing")
but we had a lot of really big ones back in the trucks a few times (i was more in the bureau...somtimes on the 2. seat in the truck...those drivers got to drive tank ammunition around quite often)

[Bobcat37]

If a guy looks at me funny, should i waste him? Can I use chemical weaponry to defend myself? So if we stipulate that there is a line which can be drawn, I don't see how you can be so sure guns are on one side of that line or another.

Dude, now you just KNOW that you are asking silly questions.

If a guy is running at you with a knife, with the obvious intent to kill you, then you have the right to take him down first. If someone looks at you funny? Give me a break, that question doesn't even deserve an answer it is so farfetched. Funny looks don't threaten your "right to live" unless you are mentally ill in the head, in which case you better not have a gun :p

[zimv20]

Funny looks don't threaten your "right to live" unless you are mentally ill in the head, in which case you better not have a gun :p
i'm guessing you've never lived in an urban environment?

[mactastic]

Dude, now you just KNOW that you are asking silly questions.

If a guy is running at you with a knife, with the obvious intent to kill you, then you have the right to take him down first. If someone looks at you funny? Give me a break, that question doesn't even deserve an answer it is so farfetched. Funny looks don't threaten your "right to live" unless you are mentally ill in the head, in which case you better not have a gun :p

Of course I'm asking silly questions. That's the point! I suppose you've never heard of the term ad absurdum? Literally I believe it is at absurdity, but it refers to the process of taking a position to the absurd to see what the results are. By saying that at an absurd level there is a line that has been crossed, you prove that there IS a line out there and that valid discussion must happen to determine where that line is. I could have made up more conventional scenarios where it would be much more ambiguous such as killing someone who you know to be a threat to you but isn't actually immediately threatening you. Or a weapon that is more ambiguous, like a grenade launcher or an SAM. Do you need those to protect you life? Some people would argue that you do. So I skip all that by going to the extreme.

I've met people who do take funny looks very seriously. They usually do speed or are hyper paranoid, but I've seen people get into fights over 'why you lookin at me like that punk?' To some people that is enough of a threat to them that they see killing you as the safest way to stay alive themselves. It's very Machiavellian. There are stories throughout history where people have slaughtered whole families, clans, first born males, villiages whatever, to protect themselves. A bit extreme, I admit, but there ARE people out there who will tell you that killing others before they kill you is how you have to live. You have to preemptively strike, if you will, before your opponent gets a chance to. Kill the kids while they are still kids so the don't grow up to seek revenge. Hell, isn't that basically what our foreign policy is WRT to terror?

If a guy is running at you with a knife you have the right to self defense. That is well established law, although you should be aware of the subtleties lest you wind up moving from self-defense to voluntary manslaughter. But more importantly, it does nothing to further the discussion of what the boundaries of self-defense are. We all know a guy with a knife can be killed (as long as you do it quick and don't disable the guy first!) but what about someone who has threatened to kill you but is sleeping? Women face this situation in abusive homes often.

[Desertrat]

mac, I only know specifics of the laws of Texas about self-defense. Simplest put, there must be cause to believe you are in imminent danger of "death or grievous bodily harm".

Stares, glares and words don't count. A verbal threat with no overt means of carrying it out isn't sufficient cause to use deadly force.

A small woman could probably be seen as justified in using deadly force were she about to be struck by a large man. Two equal-size men? Basically, fist-fight or run, don't shoot. (This is less law than reality in the courts.)

But it's in the law that anybody carrying deadly force is held to a higher standard of behavior and response than others who don't carry. You mouth off and start a conflict which leads to your use of deadly force? Shame on your happy tail--you're going to jail.

From lots of discussions about the meaning of the Second Amendment, I guess that as to type of weaponry, "crew-served" stuff is not intended for private ownership and home-use. :) No mortars or rocket launchers.

(In the FWIW department, black-powder muzzle-loading mortars, cannons and rifles are fully legal for personal ownership and use. As you might guess, these are rather expensive hobbyist "toys". The cost per shot is somewhere between high and outrageous, even though you can recycle the projectiles from the mortars and cannons.)

For those talking about knives: If a hostile person is within some seven yards of you and begins a charge with an already drawn knife, you do not have time to identify the threat and respond in time to avoid injury or death. A highly trained martial artist might have some slim chance of limiting the extent of an injury. Maybe.

G'night,

'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

i'm guessing you've never lived in an urban environment?

I am guessing not.

You and I both probably know that if we wait till we see a knife or a gun on the subway, we might be dead, if we want to protect ourselves.

As a photographer I bothered by the mentality out there that my architectural photography seems to be a bigger threat than assault weapons - or at least here in Virginia my right to carry a weapon openly.

A quick unscientific poll here:

If you support the right to bear arms as defined by the NRA (a liberal interpretation IMO);

- how do you feel about the US Patriot Act?

- how do feel about the requirements at the airports in order to fly?

- random searches of your vehicle in areas that are under Code Orange? And even not under a Code Orange?

I ask, since living in the DC area, we are very divided along political lines. A good portion of the gun rights people that I know have no problems with the restricting of the rights because of terrorism.

I also offer this hypothetical question:

If terrorists are able to legally obtain guns and assault weapons (if the ban is lifted). Lets say that 500 to 1000 of these terrorists* did an attack on the streets of DC, NYC and Boston on the same day. In the end there were 2000 to 4000 people killed by these legal weapons. In the end, we find that not all of the shooters were of "Arab" decent, just Muslim/Islamic extremists. Some were sleepers that that had made an American life for themselves and their families. Others were brought into the fold, through the teachings that received.

How does this change the view on the right of bearing arms? Do we end up with laws that restrict religious or nationality ownership of guns? Or lets take it further and it was assault weapons that were used exclusively. Would some that say any restrictions on such weapon ownership change their opinion?



* This site (http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html) back in 1992 gave a low estimate of 5 million Muslims/Islamics. 500 terrorists would represent only 0.0001% of that group.

[mactastic]

mac, I only know specifics of the laws of Texas about self-defense. Simplest put, there must be cause to believe you are in imminent danger of "death or grievous bodily harm".

Thus my quote about knowing the specifics of the state you live in. Califonia is much more strict about when you must stop an attack on someone who attacked you.

Stares, glares and words don't count. A verbal threat with no overt means of carrying it out isn't sufficient cause to use deadly force.

Indeed 'Rat, I would agree with you here. But just because the two of us see it that way doesn't mean everyone does. If Sayhey and I agree on something, does that make it right to you? Go to some of the tribal areas of the world and see if others disagree with you and me here. Hell, go to Compton and see what they say.

A small woman could probably be seen as justified in using deadly force were she about to be struck by a large man. Two equal-size men? Basically, fist-fight or run, don't shoot. (This is less law than reality in the courts.)

Sigh, I know 'Rat, you don't need to spell it out for me. The only reason I used this example is to show Bobcat that some examples are arguable while others are not. Besides, you missed the point of the example. I was asking if it's compatible with your civil right to live to take out a sleeping foe whom you know to be an immediate threat to you, but you also know you couldn't take them on were they awake. Sort of a personal version of preemptive warfare. The 'take out the kids before they grow up to come after me' is preemptive warfare as well.

What's the quote? 'I want him dead. I want his family dead. I want his house burned to the ground...'

But it's in the law that anybody carrying deadly force is held to a higher standard of behavior and response than others who don't carry. You mouth off and start a conflict which leads to your use of deadly force? Shame on your happy tail--you're going to jail.

Gee whiz, you mean to tell me with greater responsibiliy comes greater accountability?

From lots of discussions about the meaning of the Second Amendment, I guess that as to type of weaponry, "crew-served" stuff is not intended for private ownership and home-use. :) No mortars or rocket launchers.

Agreed, but a suitcase nuke is designed to be crewed by an army of one, no? Aren't such things as Stingers as well? Thus the fear of a terrorist getting on?

(In the FWIW department, black-powder muzzle-loading mortars, cannons and rifles are fully legal for personal ownership and use. As you might guess, these are rather expensive hobbyist "toys". The cost per shot is somewhere between high and outrageous, even though you can recycle the projectiles from the mortars and cannons.)

Really? I'd never heard that. No one's ever mentioned that in this forum before... :p

Seriously though, that's not what this is over.

For those talking about knives: If a hostile person is within some seven yards of you and begins a charge with an already drawn knife, you do not have time to identify the threat and respond in time to avoid injury or death. A highly trained martial artist might have some slim chance of limiting the extent of an injury. Maybe.

G'night,

'Rat

Seven yards? I beg to differ with you 'Rat. Unless you were already at full speed, it will take you at least a full second to cover that distance. You know guys who can draw a gun in less time than that, what makes you think I can't have my hands and feet ready?

If you'd like to attempt that with one of my wooden knife blanks, I'd be happy to accomodate you. I doubt I'd be the one with 'injury or death' markings. ;)

Besides, anyone who is within seven yards has already been classified as safe, harmful, and unknown. Harmfuls and unknowns get the same kind of scrutiny. Maybe if you were able to sneak up behind me from out of a crowd somehow it would be an 'injury or death' situation. But a gun won't help you there either...

[Desertrat]

"If terrorists are able to legally obtain guns and assault weapons (if the ban is lifted)."

Chip, there would be no change as to WHO may buy. There would only be a cessation of control on the cosmetics. The same rifles, absent such trivia as bayonet lugs and flash-hiders, have always been available. (A "flash-hider" does not hide the muzzle-flash from the shootee. It reduces the flash somewhat, at night, to the shooter.)

mac: Re your comment to my statement, "Stares, glares and words don't count. A verbal threat with no overt means of carrying it out isn't sufficient cause to use deadly force." was, "Indeed 'Rat, I would agree with you here. But just because the two of us see it that way doesn't mean everyone does."

Hokay. For all that I was somewhat cavalier in my phrasing, this concept is built into the law. It's not up to you or me to "see it that way". The law say everybody must see it that way.

Item: In Texas law, if you legitimately shoot at a Bad Guy in self-defense and miss and kill a bystander, you're gonna get charged with murder. That's a higher standard than the police are held to.

IOW, yes indeedy, there is accountability.

And, puhleeze, spare me the "suitcase nuke" stuff. That has absolutely nothing to do with any legal/lawful activity on the part of any on-the-street citizen.

"Seven yards? I beg to differ with you 'Rat. Unless you were already at full speed, it will take you at least a full second to cover that distance. You know guys who can draw a gun in less time than that, what makes you think I can't have my hands and feet ready?"

The control of this in my assertion is "identify the threat". Don't tell me you have the prescience to know the intentions of everybody within seven yards of you. Sure, when I'm alerted and have identified a threat and have determined to take action, I can draw from an open holster and hit within about 0.8 seconds. The alerting, ID-ing and determining eats up the time. Jeff Cooper and others have spent a lot of time discussing the meaning of and the time-aspects involved in his "Four Colors". It's worth the reading.

Briefly, Condition White is like the average soccer mom on Rodeo Drive. Guesstimate ten seconds from alert to action. Condition Yellow, about like the average house cat. About three seconds. Condition Orange, threat identified; action in roughly one second. Condition Red, pistol aimed and finger pressing on trigger. (Might or might not actually fire.)

Sure, a trained martial artist can possibly minimize his own injury, but against a trained street-fighter type who's skilled in in knife fighting, the odds are still way against him. Never assume your opponent is less skilled in his art than are you in yours.

'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

"If terrorists are able to legally obtain guns and assault weapons (if the ban is lifted)."

Chip, there would be no change as to WHO may buy. There would only be a cessation of control on the cosmetics. The same rifles, absent such trivia as bayonet lugs and flash-hiders, have always been available. (A "flash-hider" does not hide the muzzle-flash from the shootee. It reduces the flash somewhat, at night, to the shooter.)


'Rat, I think you missed my point. Terrorists would not be concerned about a "flash-hider". Their attacks would most likely happen in broad daylight. Them "whipping" their weapons from where ever they decided to hide them. Even if police were to show up within a minute of the first hot, the terrorist only care about creating fear and changing our way of life.

You still had not answered the question about the USPA, and my hypothesis. You may have that mentioned in our other posts.

One can not restrict the rights for some, with out restricting the rights of all. Much like the "free speech" zones used today. IMO our founding fathers realized that passions may lead to less than desirable results. You can't tell me that fisticuffs weren't exchanged during the debate on the fate of our nation back then.

Let's say for the sake of argument that simple handguns were used. Could/would you see a change in the law of gun ownership?

[mouchoir]

Banning a weapon because of how scary it looks seem stupid to me. Besides, if you want to waste your money on ammo for your fully automatic toy be my guest. Just pick up your damn shell casings.

The AWB is totally feel-good legislation. Let it die, and spend your time working to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.

Totally unnescessary use of the word terrorist.

Keep guns out of the hands out of anyone that may misuse them. Terrorists aren't the only ones that murder people.

[Leo Hubbard]

Totally unnescessary use of the word terrorist.

Keep guns out of the hands out of anyone that may misuse them. Terrorists aren't the only ones that murder people.
A Norwegian museum just lost two rather expensive paintings. The robbers both were fully armed. The cops weren't. Maybe the robbers wouldn't have gotten away with it if at least the cops had guns over there? They deffinitely wouldn't have gotten away with it had civilians visiting that museum carried concealed weapon permits.

What was that saying again? "outlaw guns and then only outlaws will have gun."

[takao]

A Norwegian museum just lost two rather expensive paintings. The robbers both were fully armed. The cops weren't. Maybe the robbers wouldn't have gotten away with it if at least the cops had guns over there? They deffinitely wouldn't have gotten away with it had civilians visiting that museum carried concealed weapon permits.

What was that saying again? "outlaw guns and then only outlaws will have gun."

hm funny how the police came up after the robbers already left..so even the biggest guns wouldn't be much use
it were 3 robbers (1 in the car) with 1 hand gun
i guess more stupid was that the paintings weren't secured accordingly (wired with direct alarm)..i think it's their fault after it got stolen in 1994 and found ;)


actually 1 texan tourist was there according to reuters... ;)

[skunk]

actually 1 texan tourist was there according to reuters... ;)
Where's DesertRat, I ask myself? :D

[Leo Hubbard]

hm funny how the police came up after the robbers already left..so even the biggest guns wouldn't be much use
it were 3 robbers (1 in the car) with 1 hand gun
i guess more stupid was that the paintings weren't secured accordingly (wired with direct alarm)..i think it's their fault after it got stolen in 1994 and found ;)


actually 1 texan tourist was there according to reuters... ;)
A museum full of multi-million dollar paintings doesn't have armed security or cops already there? That is just plain shortsighted.

[skunk]

A museum full of multi-million dollar paintings doesn't have armed security or cops already there? That is just plain shortsighted.
For your information, none of the museums or galleries in London has armed guards except the Tower of London. And of course the police are not routinely armed either. Funny how we manage to survive, really. Perhaps security doesn't rest exclusively in the ability to shoot the offender.

[mactastic]

mac: Re your comment to my statement, "Stares, glares and words don't count. A verbal threat with no overt means of carrying it out isn't sufficient cause to use deadly force." was, "Indeed 'Rat, I would agree with you here. But just because the two of us see it that way doesn't mean everyone does."

Hokay. For all that I was somewhat cavalier in my phrasing, this concept is built into the law. It's not up to you or me to "see it that way". The law say everybody must see it that way.

The law here does. And they enforce it pretty well. But not everywhere. Civil rights are applicable everywhere, right? Otherwise why else would we have any right whatsoever to stick our nose into what you call a humanitarian invasion of Iraq? All I'm saying is that not everyone sees it the same way you and I do, and some of them are willing to spend their life, or to die, in prison over it.

All I'm trying to do is to show that there are extremes to which you can take self defense, particularly if you think everyone is out to get you. We have reasonable standards here to prevent that, but other places aren't as willing or able to enforce our standards.

Item: In Texas law, if you legitimately shoot at a Bad Guy in self-defense and miss and kill a bystander, you're gonna get charged with murder. That's a higher standard than the police are held to.

IOW, yes indeedy, there is accountability.

That's what I said.

And, puhleeze, spare me the "suitcase nuke" stuff. That has absolutely nothing to do with any legal/lawful activity on the part of any on-the-street citizen.

So somewhere between a club and a suitcase nuke are items you can use for self defense, and others you cannot. The line is arbitrary, and up for interpretation. Just because you draw it at one man crewed weapons excepting suitcase nukes doesn't mean that is anymore right than someone who claims differently.

I think one man crewed weapons is too vague. Sure it works now, but I can forsee a time when some weapons able to be crewed by one become too deadly for general purpose use. A suitcase nuke is the most rudimentary form of something like this, but do you doubt other, more effective death boxes are on the way?

"Seven yards? I beg to differ with you 'Rat. Unless you were already at full speed, it will take you at least a full second to cover that distance. You know guys who can draw a gun in less time than that, what makes you think I can't have my hands and feet ready?"

The control of this in my assertion is "identify the threat". Don't tell me you have the prescience to know the intentions of everybody within seven yards of you. Sure, when I'm alerted and have identified a threat and have determined to take action, I can draw from an open holster and hit within about 0.8 seconds. The alerting, ID-ing and determining eats up the time. Jeff Cooper and others have spent a lot of time discussing the meaning of and the time-aspects involved in his "Four Colors". It's worth the reading.

Briefly, Condition White is like the average soccer mom on Rodeo Drive. Guesstimate ten seconds from alert to action. Condition Yellow, about like the average house cat. About three seconds. Condition Orange, threat identified; action in roughly one second. Condition Red, pistol aimed and finger pressing on trigger. (Might or might not actually fire.)

Sure, a trained martial artist can possibly minimize his own injury, but against a trained street-fighter type who's skilled in in knife fighting, the odds are still way against him. Never assume your opponent is less skilled in his art than are you in yours.

'Rat

Four colors, eight stages of engagement, whatever you want to call it, it all boils down to how fast can you get yourself covered while attacking. I'm familiar with the concept of threat evaluation.

I always assume my opponent is better, but I always project an attitude exactly opposite. Projecting the proper attitude is a major part of your stance. I'm sure you've seen people whose demeanor can intimidate someone into backing down. Heck, what am I talking about an opponent. You'll likely face 2 or 3 or more if it happens. :p

[mactastic]

Totally unnescessary use of the word terrorist.

Keep guns out of the hands out of anyone that may misuse them. Terrorists aren't the only ones that murder people.

You're right, how about we say let's keep guns out of the hands of evildoers instead? :p

[takao]

For your information, none of the museums or galleries in London has armed guards except the Tower of London. And of course the police are not routinely armed either. Funny how we manage to survive, really. Perhaps security doesn't rest exclusively in the ability to shoot the offender.

hm here neither...
and yes i know , because my sister works in the museum as a 'guard'.... (ambras castle in innsbruck with the habsburgian gallery) they have neither armed guards nor police there ... actually the biggest threat to those paintings + sculptures are the greasy fingers of the tourists ...

perhaps they have better euqipped guards in the KHM in vienna but actually i haven't seen any arms there either..nor in any other big museum i ever visited....

..no no wrong sorry .. actually in the army-history museum in the vienna arsenal they had a lot of arms in lot of different sizes...

[Desertrat]

Theft? Paintings? "I've been in my hotel room all day, resting. Those pictures were on the wall when I checked in."

From Chip: "you support the right to bear arms as defined by the NRA (a liberal interpretation IMO);

- how do you feel about the US Patriot Act?

- how do feel about the requirements at the airports in order to fly?

- random searches of your vehicle in areas that are under Code Orange? And even not under a Code Orange?"

I believe the Patriot Act has more potential for abuse of the honest citizen than anything else passed by Congress during my lifetime. I believe there is insufficient accountability.

Omitting considerations of searches for explosives, my most polite thought about the TSA is "inept". My everyday thoughts about the TSA cannot be expressed without my being banned. :)

I was unaware of the random search feature, other than at airports. Otherwise, I don't know enough about that to comment--but I'm always suspicious of governmental activities taken for "my own good". "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." does not rate high on my scale of belief.

I don't even have to be pro-gun to feel as I do.

'Rat

[skunk]

Theft? Paintings? "I've been in my hotel room all day, resting. Those pictures were on the wall when I checked in."
Tell it to the judge...

[pseudobrit]

Magazine-capacity restrictions? Why? With any reasonable training and practice, one can fire a shot, replace the magazine and fire another shot in about one second. Guys now are practicing to try and beat Jerry Miculek, who can put six rounds from a revolver into a playing card at ten yards; reload the revolver and repeat the sequence in a total elapsed time of maybe three seconds. Or, watch a guy like John Satterwhite throw seven claybirds into the air, by hand, and then shoot them all, individually, with a pump shotgun before they hit the ground. Revolvers and pump shotguns have been around for well over 100 years.

Do you think the average crackhead should have access to this kind of rapid-fire ability, not with years of practice and appreciation of the sport and love of his weapons, but instead at the flip of a lever on a stolen piece?

[zimv20]

Omitting considerations of searches for explosives, my most polite thought about the TSA is "inept". My everyday thoughts about the TSA cannot be expressed without my being banned. :)
on tuesday, i got into an argument w/ a TSA employee while waiting at the baggage carousel. she didn't like where i was standing and made me move about 5' away.

"why?" i asked.
"because you have to stand over there."
"why?"
"because you can't stand there."
"why not?"
"because you can't."
"there's no sign saying i can't."
"because i said so."

yeah. i feel safer.

[zimv20]

In fact I have never seen a gun in public that hasn't been on a police officers belt or at a shooting range.
in chicago, i've witnessed one drive-by shooting and heard two others. once i had a gun pulled on me when i was mugged.

in new orleans.

[pseudobrit]

in chicago, i've witnessed one drive-by shooting and heard two others. once i had a gun pulled on me when i was mugged.

in new orleans.

Whereabouts in NO did ya get mugged?

I'm curious because I wandered some seedy looking streets at night with zero problems. Matter of fact, no one ever ****s with me in any major city I go to at any time of day/night when I'm alone. When I'm with certain people, this changes. Even the bums won't ask for money if I'm solo.

I like to think it's because thugs can sense something about certain people, but it's probably just luck.

[zimv20]

Whereabouts in NO did ya get mugged?
somewhere i shouldn't have been, in the non-touristy parts of the french quarter rather late...


I'm curious because I wandered some seedy looking streets at night with zero problems. Matter of fact, no one ever ****s with me in any major city I go to at any time of day/night when I'm alone.
w/ this one exception, that's true w/ me, too. i've lived in some pretty dodgy areas of chicago. in NO, i was drunk off my ass and an idiot. i don't drink much these days at all.

[Chip NoVaMac]

A Norwegian museum just lost two rather expensive paintings. The robbers both were fully armed. The cops weren't. Maybe the robbers wouldn't have gotten away with it if at least the cops had guns over there? They deffinitely wouldn't have gotten away with it had civilians visiting that museum carried concealed weapon permits.

What was that saying again? "outlaw guns and then only outlaws will have gun."

Maybe the paintings would have been damaged in the hail of gun fire...

If you are suggesting that arming ever Norwegian would have prevented the theft, you should say so. Though I doubt it would.

[pseudobrit]

somewhere i shouldn't have been, in the non-touristy parts of the french quarter rather late...


w/ this one exception, that's true w/ me, too. i've lived in some pretty dodgy areas of chicago. in NO, i was drunk off my ass and an idiot. i don't drink much these days at all.

I tend not to overindulge when by myself.

The non-touristy parts of Vieux Carre are pretty bad for shootings/stabbings. The second morning I spent in NO, I opened the Times-Picayune and read the police log. An eye-opener for sure, with a handful of murders on the very streets I had walked two nights previously. I made a mental note to avoid certain areas after about 3ish in the morning.

[Chip NoVaMac]

A museum full of multi-million dollar paintings doesn't have armed security or cops already there? That is just plain shortsighted.

You like most Americans (like myself try to put OUR values on others. And that is why we are not respected in the the world.

[LethalWolfe]

Personally I wish we has a SCOTUS that respected the words of of our founding fathers. If you want to own a gun (weapon) you have to be part of the militia (and most definitions define that as our present day NG, despite the money the nRA pours into the pockets of the politicians).

SCOTUS= Supreme Court (I'm assuming).

The National Guard is a branch of the U.S. military that typically serves at the state level but can be put into national service at any point in time. I don't think the intent of the 2nd Amend. was to keep arms in the hands of the country's military and out of the hands of its citizen.




I still say that a better use of time and resources is going after the criminals. Go after people that make a living in illegal gun trafficking (whose weapons are used in the vast majority of gun crimes in the US) and roll out a long term plan of addressing the socio-economic conditions that "cause" most crimes in the first place. Instead of spending time and money on more AWB-like legislation lets give that money and sense of urgency to law enforcement. Say, "This is a priority, here's more funding, here's more man power, here's more resources. Now go catch the guys that are supplying weapons to criminals."


Lethal

[Chip NoVaMac]

I was unaware of the random search feature, other than at airports. Otherwise, I don't know enough about that to comment--but I'm always suspicious of governmental activities taken for "my own good". "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." does not rate high on my scale of belief.

I don't even have to be pro-gun to feel as I do.

'Rat

In the current Code Orange, we here is DC have been subjected to random street closures and searches. Many do not know the true impact of laws till it is too late.

[Chip NoVaMac]

SCOTUS= Supreme Court (I'm assuming).

The National Guard is a branch of the U.S. military that typically serves at the state level but can be put into national service at any point in time. I don't think the intent of the 2nd Amend. was to keep arms in the hands of the country's military and out of the hands of its citizen.




I still say that a better use of time and resources is going after the criminals. Go after people that make a living in illegal gun trafficking (whose weapons are used in the vast majority of gun crimes in the US) and roll out a long term plan of addressing the socio-economic conditions that "cause" most crimes in the first place. Instead of spending time and money on more AWB-like legislation lets give that money and sense of urgency to law enforcement. Say, "This is a priority, here's more funding, here's more man power, here's more resources. Now go catch the guys that are supplying weapons to criminals."


Lethal

You seemed to avoid my question of 500 to 100o terrorists that legally obtained weapons and killed 2000 to 4000 Americans. It does seem that you and the NRA would find an excuse.

[mouchoir]

A Norwegian museum just lost two rather expensive paintings. The robbers both were fully armed. The cops weren't. Maybe the robbers wouldn't have gotten away with it if at least the cops had guns over there? They deffinitely wouldn't have gotten away with it had civilians visiting that museum carried concealed weapon permits.

What was that saying again? "outlaw guns and then only outlaws will have gun."

So a stand-off between an armed robber and a civilian with a concealed weapon woud be better?

So instead of a stolen painting, we would have eaither a dead thief or civilian, and potential fatalities to bystanders. Sounds like a fabulous soloution.

Maybe with proper security and anti-theft devices in place, the robbery would be less successful.

What was that song again? "I shot the thief, but I did not shoot the tourist."

[gekko513]

A museum full of multi-million dollar paintings doesn't have armed security or cops already there? That is just plain shortsighted.

The security in the museum is a balance between protecting the painting from theft, protecting the painting from damage because of theft, making it available to the public and protecting the public from harm in case of theft.

The paintings are not locked up or put behind safety glass to make it available to the public. Reason is it has no value as art unless people can see it and appreciate it.

It was secured by wire and a silent alarm system, but not bolted to the wall. This was to make it difficult to remove but not so hard as to risk damage to the painting if someone tried hard enough.

The museum doors do not lock up in case of alarm to protect the public from desperate thieves. The same goes for armed guards and armed police. Even an X million dollar painting is not worth the cost of risking a human life.

We don't have armed police in Norway. So far we haven't had any higher crime rate because of this, so as long as we are able to keep it this way, there is no reason for us to change that policy.

[skunk]

This idea that guns are the answer to all life's problems is terribly un-European, thank goodness. An armed populace is a frightened populace.

[mactastic]

Ha! See guns? There's a couple guys down the road from me that were out taking target practice yesterday afternoon. I heard a rifle (or two, hard to say) and a shotgun for an hour or so. If I wasn't so swamped with stuff to do at the new house I would have wandered down to see what they were shooting and if they'll let me use their homemade range with them sometime. :p

[Desertrat]

"Do you think the average crackhead should have access to this kind of rapid-fire ability...at the flip of a lever on a stolen piece?

Pseudobrit, since this has not happened even once in the last 50 years, I really dont see this as a problem.

SFAIK, the only selective-fire weapons which have been stolen and misused were those taken by Black Panthers from National Guard armories back in the 1960s, and there were few of those. For those who wish to worry, few have been recovered. There were reports from the Rodney King riots of NG guys with M16s but no ammo who had their rifles taken away from them. I don't know if that's true.

Citizens with multi-thousand-dollar firearms take care as to security; the alternative can be jail time and large fines.

Walking alone: It is well known that one's mannerisms and body language while strolling about town indicate victimhood or a lack of it. Criminals generally seek easy prey, as do all predators. You don't have to look like you're looking for a fight, either. Projecting an awareness of one's surroundings is generally sufficient.

skunk, "An armed populace is a frightened populace." might be believable for you, but not for me or many other people. Heinlein said it better: "An armed society is a polite society."

People refer to the "wild, wild west" in speaking of violence and guns. Wrong. The reality was--and is--that the crime rate of the late 1800s was much lower than in the eastern cities. The same holds, today, in the western states.

Major car wrecks or house fires are low-odds events, but I've paid for insurance against these for decades. A pistol is nothing more than a form of insurance against a low-odds event.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

If a part of town is dangerous enough for me to worry about my safety, I don't go there. If it's not dangerous enough for me to worry about my safety, I simply don't worry about it. I can't remember the last time I didn't go somewhere because I was worried about it.

What is wrong with me? Am I un-American?

[gekko513]

skunk, "An armed populace is a frightened populace." might be believable for you, but not for me or many other people. Heinlein said it better: "An armed society is a polite society."
I don't know if an armed populace is a polite or a frightened populace, but I do know this:

Murders with firearms per capita (per 1,000,000)
28.5 U.S.A.
5.2 Canada
4.6 Germany
2.8 Denmark
1.0 U.K.
(nationmaster.com)

Well, maybe you're polite about the killing in the U.S.
:rolleyes: ;)

[skunk]

I don't know if an armed populace is a polite or a frightened populace, but I do know this:

Murders with firearms per capita (per 1,000,000)
28.5 U.S.A.
5.2 Canada
4.6 Germany
2.8 Denmark
1.0 U.K.
(nationmaster.com)

Well, maybe you're polite about the killing in the U.S.
:rolleyes: ;)
"Excuse me while I blow your head off" ;)

[LethalWolfe]

You seemed to avoid my question of 500 to 100o terrorists that legally obtained weapons and killed 2000 to 4000 Americans.

Didn't avoid it, just missed (I just skimmed the thread when I got home last night).

It does seem that you and the NRA would find an excuse.

Gettin' kinda snippy here aren't we? Since you've seem to already written off my response to your Q should I even bother responding?


I fail to see the point of your hypethical. No, I take that back. I understand the point you are trying to make but your example is just very poor. The AWB, by and large, didn't ban weapons it banned how certain weapons could look. It did little/nothing to reduce the amount of firepower legally for sale. And it did little/nothing to reduce the number of crimes these weapons were used in. Why? Because by and large the people who commit crimes w/these weapons do not buy them legally. Most of the firepower the AWB "banned" never went anywhere. People are afraid of something coming back that never left.

Would you feel better if the terrorists killed all those people w/illegally purchased weapons? If a terrorist, or criminal, wants a weapon that can't be purchased legally odds are they have no problems w/puchasing it illegally. Instead of limiting what legal gun owners can legally buy/not buy, and seemingly ignoring the very nature of criminals, why not spend those resources going after criminals (and digging up those "sleepers").
Also, I guess I'm just having a problem w/yer hypothetical because, from a terrorist stand point, it seems like a really bad plan. Terrorists spend years planning and lying in wait. To sacrifice 500-1000 "sleepers" to something as low yield (in body count) as a shoot-out seems too wasteful to be plausible. 500-1000 suicide bombers (guys just w/explsoives strapped to their chests) would be a much better plan (althought probably not much more likely).

Legislation like the AWB is pointless and dangerous to the public. Not only does it create a false sense of security it creates a "problem solved" attitude that causes people to overlook, if not ignore, the actual problem.

The overall crime rate in the US is lower than that of Australia, England, or Whales. There are more robberies and burglaries in Australia, England, or Whales than in the US. Although still higher, gun murder rates in the US have gone down while gun murder rates in the UK have gone up. Gun crime in the UK has almost doubled sense the '97 ban. UK law enforcement credits the rising drug-related gang violence w/much of the increased of gun violence. And they are trying to figure out how to stop all the firearms that are being illegaly brought into the country.

And then there's the Swiss...

Guns won't solve all problems and guns don't cause all problems.

Instead of focuing so much on how crime is commited why not focus a little bit more on why.


Lethal

P.S. If I've missed any other specific points people want me to touch on just let me know. I'm kinda catching up piece-meal so if I miss something it's not intentional.

[IJ Reilly]

You know, this post only serves to remind me that I've yet to receive a direct answer to my question, which was: What kinds of weapons, if any, should be banned from private ownership, and why?

[LethalWolfe]

One more thing, in regards to England, I do agree w/the changes they are making (or trying to make). Instead of focusing on guns themselves they are trying to focus on the root causes of crime (including gun crime).

Link 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3707071.stm)

Link 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3667985.stm)

It's definetly the harder row to hoe, but I think it is the only viable, long term solution.


Lethal

[krimson]

You know, this post only serves to remind me that I've yet to receive a direct answer to my question, which was: What kinds of weapons, if any, should be banned from private ownership, and why?

Personally, im fine with the anything over 50cal ban on private ownership.

Should a private citizen have a 6-barrel vulcan (ie, Terminator 2, Predator)?
probably not.
Anti-Tank Missiles, RPG's? again probably not.

[Desertrat]

IJ sez, "If a part of town is dangerous enough for me to worry about my safety, I don't go there. If it's not dangerous enough for me to worry about my safety, I simply don't worry about it."

Yup. Makes sense to me. That's pretty much the way I do, myownself.

And I thought I'd answered the question several times. This thread, and previous ones.

Lemme try a different direction on this. I don't object to government controls on some firearms. I don't object to controls on full-auto weapons or selective-fire semi-auto/full-auto stuff. I don't particularly object to controls on modern-cartridge rifles or whatever, above 50-caliber--and that mostly speaks to the "sorta pipsqueak" WW I anti-tank or early WW II anti-tank guns. Leave it up to the government to worry about mortars and cannons and suitcase nukes and all that stuff.

As far as what people can have if they're determined safe by the government? Hey, I don't care if you have an Abrams with a boxcar's worth of ammo. I'd then only worry about noise ordinances or damage to roads.

'Rat

[Neserk]

Instead of focusing on guns themselves they are trying to focus on the root causes of crime (including gun crime).

Lethal

What a novel idea! Let's try and cure the problem :D I'm all for prevention in the form of social reform. ALthough some days I'm not so sure how extreme it is going to have to get to be fixed. :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

IJ sez, "If a part of town is dangerous enough for me to worry about my safety, I don't go there. If it's not dangerous enough for me to worry about my safety, I simply don't worry about it."

Yup. Makes sense to me. That's pretty much the way I do, myownself.

And I thought I'd answered the question several times. This thread, and previous ones.

I said this only because some people do express a need to be armed while going about their daily business. I find it's fairly easy to manage my exposure to risk and everything beyond that is essentially managing fear.

Yes, you've made an effort to define reasonable and responsible ownership of types of weapons in the past, but we've got some new people discussing this issue now so I thought I'd give them a stab at this question (so to speak...). Also, what I'm really seeking is some sort of logical definition or rationale for where the line ought to be drawn, the point having already been made that the AWB did not create this kind of standard.

[Leo Hubbard]

I don't know if an armed populace is a polite or a frightened populace, but I do know this:

Murders with firearms per capita (per 1,000,000)
28.5 U.S.A.
5.2 Canada
4.6 Germany
2.8 Denmark
1.0 U.K.
(nationmaster.com)

Well, maybe you're polite about the killing in the U.S.
:rolleyes: ;)
It would be better to compare murder in general, not just murder with firearms. Those with strong gun laws just have to be more inventive with how they kill one another, they still kill one another.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Didn't avoid it, just missed (I just skimmed the thread when I got home last night).

Gettin' kinda snippy here aren't we? Since you've seem to already written off my response to your Q should I even bother responding?


Sorry. No offense was meant. Normally your
are quick and well formed (as is this one).

I have found that in those that I have met that have supported gun ownership (and in most cases NRA members also) have little problem with the USPA.

I find it ironic that some are willing to call for meaning of the Constitution to be met in one way, and not in all others. I am not saying that you fall into that category. But I was trying to illustrate that we can not restrict rights in one area, without other areas possibly feeling the pinch.

My hypothesis may have it flaws. Yet terrorists want the US to give up on it "ways". And in some ways with the USPA, airport security, and restrictions and security on what we photograph; the terrorists have won on that front.

So the point that I was making that since there is a strong feeling about gun ownership in the US, the sacrificing of 500 to 1000 in a "low yield" attack could have a great impact on the US way of life. And that is the overall desire of the terrorists. To change our way of life.

You and I will probably never agree on the AWB. From a collectors standpoint, I can see it. From a practical standpoint i don't see a need for AW's. I guess it also goes to my feelings against the death penalty. I can support it for some like McVey or the DC snipers (based on the evidence); but at the same point I hate the idea that one innocent person is put to death.

As you can tell in terms of gun ownership I look at it from a black and white standpoint. Meaning that a gun purchased was meant to be used. Yet at the same point as a camera collector, I understand that not all purchases are meant to be used either.

Though it does not mean that I don't support fully that in order to own a gun, you need to be part of a militia (modern terms NG). I willing to even allow those that have served to be able to keep their weapons, as long as they were in good standing. For if we are to believe some rhetoric, even if you are on your deathbed and the US government was under "attack". that someone 90 years old would be part of the "militia" to protect us.

I also support fully your idea trying to get at the root cause of gun violence. i am just concerned that without some controls on guns, we are headed to bigger problems that we care to think about.

[Chip NoVaMac]

You know, this post only serves to remind me that I've yet to receive a direct answer to my question, which was: What kinds of weapons, if any, should be banned from private ownership, and why?

Sorry I missed it in my "rant". I believe that ANY gun ownership should be tied to the NG service.

AW's have little purpose IMO, and should be banned. Though I do have reservations out collectors, for I think in some way they should be accommodated. How, I am not sure. AW's I see has having limited purpose for general ownership.

And though the science is not exact at this time, I do think that every gun needs to have a firing sample on file.

[Leo Hubbard]

Sorry I missed it in my "rant". I believe that ANY gun ownership should be tied to the NG service.

AW's have little purpose IMO, and should be banned. Though I do have reservations out collectors, for I think in some way they should be accommodated. How, I am not sure. AW's I see has having limited purpose for general ownership.

And though the science is not exact at this time, I do think that every gun needs to have a firing sample on file.
With todays science it is relatively easy to build your own AW in your garage.

[mactastic]

Lemme try a different direction on this. I don't object to government controls on some firearms. I don't object to controls on full-auto weapons or selective-fire semi-auto/full-auto stuff. I don't particularly object to controls on modern-cartridge rifles or whatever, above 50-caliber--and that mostly speaks to the "sorta pipsqueak" WW I anti-tank or early WW II anti-tank guns. Leave it up to the government to worry about mortars and cannons and suitcase nukes and all that stuff.

As far as what people can have if they're determined safe by the government? Hey, I don't care if you have an Abrams with a boxcar's worth of ammo. I'd then only worry about noise ordinances or damage to roads.

'Rat

When you say 'government controls' do you mean a ban on certain types of weapons?

I thought it was a relatively easy modification to move a semi-auto rifle to a full-auto?

And to me the fight over gun control is mostly the fight over handgun control. Not many people are worried about rifle assaults, they are concerned about the easy accessibility of handguns and the problems that can cause when coupled with other factors. Modern cartridge rifles don't seem to be the concern in my book.

As to boxcars worth of ammo, at some point depending on how close to others you live, you become a potential hazard to others. Sure some people can be trusted to safely store a bunch of tank rounds, but I'd be concerned about a fire breaking out in my neighbors house (well not my neighbors, they are all over 1/4 mile away :) ) if I lived next to that.

[LethalWolfe]

Sorry. No offense was meant. Normally your
are quick and well formed (as is this one).
:)

I have found that in those that I have met that have supported gun ownership (and in most cases NRA members also) have little problem with the USPA.

I find it ironic that some are willing to call for meaning of the Constitution to be met in one way, and not in all others. I am not saying that you fall into that category. But I was trying to illustrate that we can not restrict rights in one area, without other areas possibly feeling the pinch.


I agree, although probably not in the same way you do. ;)


My hypothesis may have it flaws. Yet terrorists want the US to give up on it "ways". And in some ways with the USPA, airport security, and restrictions and security on what we photograph; the terrorists have won on that front.

So the point that I was making that since there is a strong feeling about gun ownership in the US, the sacrificing of 500 to 1000 in a "low yield" attack could have a great impact on the US way of life. And that is the overall desire of the terrorists. To change our way of life.

Sry, I skipped over the USPA part. My position on the USPA can be sumed up like this: It's one reason why my vote in the '04 election won't be the same as it as in the '00 election.

I'm confused. Terrorist changing our way of life is bad (correct?). And you think, possibly, if there was a terrorist attack like you described the intended goal would be for the government to, basically, disarm the public. And that would be bad because terrorism would, in yet another fashion, would dictate our lives. But you want the general public dissarmed. So, disarming the public due to terrorism is bad, but disarming the public "for it's own safety" is okay? Am I crossing my wires here some where?


You and I will probably never agree on the AWB. From a collectors standpoint, I can see it. From a practical standpoint i don't see a need for AW's.

My problem w/the AWB isn't what it banned, but all the things it didn't ban (but gave the impression that it did). I'm not advocating that everyone should have an AW in their living room. I'm advocating that the AWB is worthless, feel good legislation that, in reality, isn't worth the paper it's written on. The definetion of an AW by the BATF is based mainly on comestic things (folding stocks, protruding pistol grips, etc.,) that in no way impact the lethality of the weapon. The AWB uses the BATF definetion so the AWB prohibits weapons mainly based on comestic things that in no way impact the lethality of the weapon.

For me the "2nd Amend. debate" and "gun crime debate" are two seperate topics (although there definetly can be some cross over). When I first hear of a new gun law/proposal I judge it see if it would actually be an effective law. If I think it will be an effective idea I'll weigh it against the 2nd. Amend.

My beef w/the AWB is much more "gun crime" than "2nd Amend." If the AWB actually had some merit to it then, for me, it would become a 2nd Amend. issuse as I would weigh the "gains" of the AWB against its errosion of the Bill of Rights. But the AWB is so lifeless that it miserably<sp?> fails my "gun crime" test.



Though it does not mean that I don't support fully that in order to own a gun, you need to be part of a militia (modern terms NG). I willing to even allow those that have served to be able to keep their weapons, as long as they were in good standing. For if we are to believe some rhetoric, even if you are on your deathbed and the US government was under "attack". that someone 90 years old would be part of the "militia" to protect us.

The National Guard is not the modern version of a State militia. The NG is a branch of the US armed forces. They are controlled by the brass in D.C. not the suits in your state capital. What's the point of even having the 2nd Amend. if the Founding Fathers only wanted federal troops to be armed? The 2nd Amend., IMO, was intended to make sure citizens could fight back in the extreme case that the Federal Government went the way of tyrany<sp?>. Seeing as how the Founding Fathers fought to become independent from the British government I don't see this as a far fetched POV. Also, I don't think the American Revolution would have gone nearly so well if nobody on this side of the Atlantic had arms. ;) If, for whatever reason, the nation is put under Martial Law, and the whole country looks like the movie "The Siege," the National Guard is going to be out enforcing Martial Law. Not protecting your rights. The sword helps protect the pen, IMO.


[QUOTEI also support fully your idea trying to get at the root cause of gun violence. i am just concerned that without some controls on guns, we are headed to bigger problems that we care to think about.[/QUOTE]

But will the controls control those that disobey control? The Columbine shooters broke around 19 different firearm laws. Would more laws on the books have made a difference? The focus needs to be on those commiting crimes. Not those obeying the law. Would fewer drive-by's happen if we made it hard to get a driver's license?

If the AWB actually kept AW's out of the hands of criminals (and that's a big if), did it actually have any impact on crime? By that I mean, did Bob the Criminal decide not to hold up the 7/11 because he couldn't get a rifle that had a bayonet lug and a folding stock? Or did he just use a different kind of firearm? Was there be a lateral shift in crime but no overall drop?

Personally, I'm not all that worried about AW in the wrong hands 'cause they only account for about 2% of the firearms used in crimes. There are bigger, albeit less headline grabbing, things that should be addressed in reducing gun crime IMO.


Lethal

[Desertrat]

mac asked, "When you say 'government controls' do you mean a ban on certain types of weapons?"

No. Controls, such as we now have on the full-autos, suppressors, and short-barrelled shotguns or rifles. If a person can prove he's not a danger to the community and has a clean record, etc., why worry? There are only two known instances of crimes with legal full-auto guns, and both were committed by policemen using departmental weapons.

"I thought it was a relatively easy modification to move a semi-auto rifle to a full-auto?"

Some, yes, but not by the average layman. Any competent machinist can do such a conversion, or build the entire machine gun. Even my relatively low level of skill as a machinist is sufficient, if I had a lathe and a milling machine.

"...the fight over gun control is mostly the fight over handgun control. Not many people are worried about rifle assaults, they are concerned about the easy accessibility of handguns..."

Easy accessibility? You obviously haven't tried to make a legal purchase of a handgun in the last few years. Before 1968, you made payment arrangements with a seller anywhere in the US, and the USPS delivered the handgun to your front door. Then came the BATF (now BATFE) form 4473 (the "Yellow Sheet") and now add the FBI's National Instant Check System (NICS) where the records of the National Crime Information Center are checked before purchase is allowed. This is true for rifles and shotguns as well.

Some states disallow purchase by one individual from another. Federal law prohibits an individual selling or giving or giving by will any firearm to another individual from another state. The typical federal penalty is a maximum of ten years in the pen and a fine of $20,000.

"As to boxcars worth of ammo, at some point depending on how close to others you live, you become a potential hazard to others. Sure some people can be trusted to safely store a bunch of tank rounds, but I'd be concerned about a fire breaking out in my neighbors house..."

Cities already have ordinances about what sorts of and how much of any hazardous material can be stored where and how. For some "tanker" out in the country, I'd imagine storage of the ammo would either be underground or at some friend's very large tract of land. Loaded ammunition is far safer as to fire or explosion than the typical can of gasoline for homeowners' lawnmowers. And, after all, just finding a place for this millionaire to play with his toy is no mean feat. (Just wish I had the tank; I've got the place. :D)

Chip, re "Firing Sample". Waste of time and money. Every time a gun is fired, the cause of marks on the sample changes. Further, it's really, really easy to do your own changing. Some valve-grinding compound on a cleaning patch changes the barrel, if you don't already have a spare. A piece of sandpaper quickly changes the tip of the firing pin and a semi-auto's breech face. Anybody think crooks don't already know this?

My experience with the rhetoric of pro-gun folks (mostly over at TheHighRoad.org) about the Patriot Act is that it's an infringement on liberty. They're generally against it, or against the tremendous potential for abuse. I don't know how many actually post, out of the roughly 13,000 members, but there's sure no notable amount of support.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Still nobody taking on my question. And I thought it was such a simple, direct and germane one. Oh well, I officially give up -- until the next time.

[Chip NoVaMac]

'rat, thank you for your thoughtful response,

I will admit that living in he DC area skews the way you look at certain topics.

Though I do not agree with all you points, I respect where you are coming from.

My point of reference comes from my upbringing. My Dad was a law enforcement officer of one sort or another through his career. He never owned his own weapon. Though I can't remember a time that there was not a weapon in the house.

As a kid he took me once to the firing range. All I remember is being on my ass after firing his service revolver. And his buddies having a great laugh.

He also joined the military at 17. He also bought me up to respect God and country. He never did hunting. He never did sport shooting. What he did teach me is that weapon was just that. A weapon to be used to protect ones self. And that meant being part of the military or the law enforcement in his opinion.

I asked him once if he ever shot some one. His answer was that I should never be put into that situation. For me that spoke volumes. And it speaks to me today.

[gekko513]

It would be better to compare murder in general, not just murder with firearms. Those with strong gun laws just have to be more inventive with how they kill one another, they still kill one another.
Lol ... nice try

Murders (in general) per capita (per 1,000,000)
43.6 U.S.A
15.3 Canada
14.2 U.K
11.7 Germany
11.6 Denmark

[gekko513]

I have some concerns regarding the arguments some pro-gun people use.

First is the right to protect themselves. It sounds valid if you just see the small picture. It's ok for a good guy to get a gun for protection, because after all, the bad guys will have guns. This sounds nice, but the argument has a huge flaw.

There is no such thing as good guys and bad guys. There's just guys. Sometimes a "good guy" turn bad. Let's say a normal guy gets a gun for protection. What are the chances that he will use have to use it to protect himself and his family? Pretty slim, even the pro-gun people says so. What are the chances that his son, or his sons friend takes the gun and sells it for money for drugs? Pretty slim, but it happens. What are the chances of someone breaking into the house when noone's there and steals the gun? Pretty slim, but it happens. What are the chances that the man and his wife has a fight, she wants a divorce, he goes nuts and uses his gun? Pretty slim, but it happens, too. What if the son gets rejected by his girlfriend, gets so drunk that he loses his mind, gets the gun and blows his brains out?

... and let's say a burglar breaks into the house and the guy goes downstairs with his gun to confront the burglar. What are the chances that the burglar has a gun? Pretty big. What are the chances that this gun is a stolen gun ... stolen from another "normal guy". Pretty big, too.

When many normal guys gets guns for protection, all they do is add to the threat that they originally tried to protect themselves from.

[Leo Hubbard]

Lol ... nice try

Murders (in general) per capita (per 1,000,000)
43.6 U.S.A
15.3 Canada
14.2 U.K
11.7 Germany
11.6 Denmark
Map & Graph: Crime: Murders (per capita) (Top 100 Countries)
View this stat: Totals Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. Colombia 0.63 per 1000 people
2. South Africa 0.51 per 1000 people
3. Jamaica 0.32 per 1000 people
4. Venezuela 0.32 per 1000 people
5. Russia 0.19 per 1000 people
6. Mexico 0.13 per 1000 people
7. Lithuania 0.10 per 1000 people
8. Estonia 0.10 per 1000 people
9. Latvia 0.10 per 1000 people
10. Belarus 0.09 per 1000 people
11. Ukraine 0.09 per 1000 people
12. Papua New Guinea 0.08 per 1000 people
13. Kyrgyzstan 0.08 per 1000 people
14. Thailand 0.07 per 1000 people
15. Moldova 0.07 per 1000 people
16. Zambia 0.07 per 1000 people
17. Seychelles 0.07 per 1000 people
18. Zimbabwe 0.07 per 1000 people
19. Costa Rica 0.06 per 1000 people
20. Poland 0.05 per 1000 people
21. Georgia 0.04 per 1000 people
22. Uruguay 0.04 per 1000 people
23. Bulgaria 0.04 per 1000 people
24. United States 0.04 per 1000 people
25. Armenia 0.03 per 1000 people
hmmm http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

[mactastic]

mac asked, "When you say 'government controls' do you mean a ban on certain types of weapons?"

No. Controls, such as we now have on the full-autos, suppressors, and short-barrelled shotguns or rifles. If a person can prove he's not a danger to the community and has a clean record, etc., why worry? There are only two known instances of crimes with legal full-auto guns, and both were committed by policemen using departmental weapons.

Well now that sounds like a ban to me. As far as I know, short-barrelled shotguns are illegal for civilians? Whch means banned, right? Maybe we're arguing semantics here, but it sounds to me like all the examples you cited are all verboten to civvies like me.

Would control include registration? Or just saying people with shady pasts can't have the biggest and baddest weapons?

"I thought it was a relatively easy modification to move a semi-auto rifle to a full-auto?"

Some, yes, but not by the average layman. Any competent machinist can do such a conversion, or build the entire machine gun. Even my relatively low level of skill as a machinist is sufficient, if I had a lathe and a milling machine.

So then why have any controls at all on sales of fully automatic weapons? If you're saying they've almost never been used in a crime, and they are too expensive for the average Bad Guy, why do you advocate any controls at all?

"...the fight over gun control is mostly the fight over handgun control. Not many people are worried about rifle assaults, they are concerned about the easy accessibility of handguns..."

Easy accessibility? You obviously haven't tried to make a legal purchase of a handgun in the last few years. Before 1968, you made payment arrangements with a seller anywhere in the US, and the USPS delivered the handgun to your front door. Then came the BATF (now BATFE) form 4473 (the "Yellow Sheet") and now add the FBI's National Instant Check System (NICS) where the records of the National Crime Information Center are checked before purchase is allowed. This is true for rifles and shotguns as well.

Well now I didn't say legal now did I? All I said was easy availability. You obviously haven't tried to make an illegal purchase of a handgun in the last few years. I could go through maybe 2 degrees of seperation and have one pretty quick with no questions asked. And THAT is what concerns people. A gun that is traceable to you is one more reason not to use your gun in anger.

Some states disallow purchase by one individual from another. Federal law prohibits an individual selling or giving or giving by will any firearm to another individual from another state. The typical federal penalty is a maximum of ten years in the pen and a fine of $20,000.

And how typical is it for anyone to be fined anything, let alone the maximum sentence?

[gekko513]

Map & Graph: Crime: Murders (per capita) (Top 100 Countries)
View this stat: Totals Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. Colombia 0.63 per 1000 people
2. South Africa 0.51 per 1000 people
3. Jamaica 0.32 per 1000 people
4. Venezuela 0.32 per 1000 people
5. Russia 0.19 per 1000 people
6. Mexico 0.13 per 1000 people
7. Lithuania 0.10 per 1000 people
8. Estonia 0.10 per 1000 people
9. Latvia 0.10 per 1000 people
10. Belarus 0.09 per 1000 people
11. Ukraine 0.09 per 1000 people
12. Papua New Guinea 0.08 per 1000 people
13. Kyrgyzstan 0.08 per 1000 people
14. Thailand 0.07 per 1000 people
15. Moldova 0.07 per 1000 people
16. Zambia 0.07 per 1000 people
17. Seychelles 0.07 per 1000 people
18. Zimbabwe 0.07 per 1000 people
19. Costa Rica 0.06 per 1000 people
20. Poland 0.05 per 1000 people
21. Georgia 0.04 per 1000 people
22. Uruguay 0.04 per 1000 people
23. Bulgaria 0.04 per 1000 people
24. United States 0.04 per 1000 people
25. Armenia 0.03 per 1000 people
hmmm http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
And how many of the 23 countries ahead of the US in that graph do you wish to compare the US to? They are all developing countries or countries that are trying to restructure after the collapse of communism.

Edit: I suppose Mexico can be considered a semi-developed country, but Mexico has even more guns than the US, or so I've heard, so that just strengthens my point.

[Desertrat]

gekko, you're making assumptions that are far beyond the norm of experience; most of your scenarios fall into the "one in a million" style. And to say that there are "just guys" strikes me as rather a naive concept, to be polite about it.

mac, we're having trouble with the word "ban". To me, the word means no such animal to be owned, made, used, whatever. If a thing is banned, efforts are made by government such that somehow the banned items should totally disappear. "Control" by government, on the other hand, to me means there is some system of licensing by government whereby you or I can own something or do something. As in, government controls the export of certain technologies. Now, our government has indeed banned the manufacture and sale of newly-made full-auto weapons to the citizenry. Only to the police and military establishments, which we all love and trust to the fullest of our abilities. :D

"So then why have any controls at all on sales of fully automatic weapons? If you're saying they've almost never been used in a crime, and they are too expensive for the average Bad Guy, why do you advocate any controls at all?"

I said I could live with the present system, which doesn't mean I advocate the present system.

"Well now I didn't say legal now did I? All I said was easy availability. I could go through maybe 2 degrees of seperation and have one pretty quick with no questions asked. And THAT is what concerns people."

What law PREVENTS illegal actions? What law binding you or me prevents the crook from his own illegal acquisition?

"A gun that is traceable to you is one more reason not to use your gun in anger."

That sentence is out of place, in that paragraph. You're equating an illegally acquired handgun with a legally acquired handgun by the inclusion. And, generally, if one is given to violence while angry, the issue of tracing is irrelevant. The perp is either going to try to avoid capture and remain anonymous; or, will remain at the scene all full of angst and grief over his tragic mistake and blather all he knows to the responding officers.

"And how typical is it for anyone to be fined anything, let alone the maximum sentence?"

There is an extremely low probability of being caught. Shifting emphasis, there have been less than a dozen prosecutions under "Brady", although it was claimed during the second Clinton term that hundreds of thousands of "crooks" have been denied a purchase. The names, addresses and Social Security numbers of the would-be purchasers are known to the federal government. Same penalties apply...

'Rat

[gekko513]

gekko, you're making assumptions that are far beyond the norm of experience; most of your scenarios fall into the "one in a million" style. And to say that there are "just guys" strikes me as rather a naive concept, to be polite about it.
The point I'm trying to make is that all the unlikely scenarios that a gun in the care of a "good guy" is used in a bad way add up to a society where you're in fact less safe than you would have been if you lived in a society where very few have guns.

The numbers are on my side, the pro-gun side only has the consitutional right and wishful thinking on their side. So I guess that makes me naive, but if you can't see the numbers, then I also guess you're blind.

[Leo Hubbard]

only has the consitutional right :eek:

[LethalWolfe]

The point I'm trying to make is that all the unlikely scenarios that a gun in the care of a "good guy" is used in a bad way add up to a society where you're in fact less safe than you would have been if you lived in a society where very few have guns.

The numbers are on my side, the pro-gun side only has the consitutional right and wishful thinking on their side. So I guess that makes me naive, but if you can't see the numbers, then I also guess you're blind.

For someone who likes stats so much did you miss a couple of my posts? Namely, the ones talking about the gun crime and murder rate in the UK rising sense their '97 ban (while during the same time period gun crime in the US has dropped) and comparing overall crime rates (as well as specific ones like robberies, assaults, and burglaries) between the US and countries that have tried to curb crime by heavily restricting/banning legal gun ownership. You don't need to pull a firearm on a burglar or robber for it to be an effective deterent. The mere fact that the criminal could encounter armed resistence is a deterent in itself.

And, please, feel free to back-up your "there are no good guys" argruement w/stats showing how likely those things are. A dozen "one in a million" situations added up still just leaves you w/12 in million. Not exactly a tidal wave of doom. We can all toss out hypotheticals to support our respective positions but that's kind of pointless don't you think?

I think you are significantly over simplifing the problem (i.e. legal gun ownership=unsafe, no legal gun ownership=safe). Following your logic Switerzland should be a hot bed of rampent crime and murder. But it's not. Why? Because there are cultural, social, and economic factors that influence crime significantly more than firearms.

And, maybe it's not a Norwigen<sp?> thing, but we take our Bill of Rights pretty seriously here in the States.

Last, but not least, do you have any suggestions on how to address the issue at hand?

Summary of ICVS (http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm)


Lethal

EDIT: To get to the summary click on the 2nd link under the "2000 Surveys" section. The link reads "full text in PDF" but it should take you to another web page, not open a PDF doc.

[gekko513]

I'll address that bill of rights thing first.

A constitution is just a set of rules made by people. They are supposed to be of a more fundamental nature than regular laws, and are therefore harder to change. They were however made by people and the situation at that time.

If some part of it doesn't make sense anymore, either because people are starting to feel different about it or because the world changes, then there is nothing wrong with changing the constitution.

The constitution is just as debatable as anything else, it probably needs even more debate than other laws and politics, because it has greater impact.

It's not like it's a holy script or anything.

[FriarCrazy]

I checked a few pages of this thread to see if anyone said something along the lines of what I'm about to say but didn't find anything. That said, if I'm simply repeating a previous post, please understand why.

From the perspective of a hunter, the AWB staying in place or being lifted means absolutly nothing. No modest and civil hunter will care about the AWB, however, comments about banning ALL weapons or tying gun ownership to NG service are distressing and worrysome. There ARE some of us who own guns who enjoy the sport of hunting, the taste of fresh game, and the experience of hunting with friends and family. I personally own a 12 gauge shotgun, and it is one of my most favorite posessions. This is because hunting with my father is one of the most rewarding activities in my life. Sitting in a duck slew with Dad, the dog, doughnuts, and our guns is a great father son experience. If someone tried to take that away from me, I would be outraged.

[gekko513]

I'm not familiar with the laws in Switzerland, but the % of households with guns in Switzerland is not that high 27% ... USA has 39%, Norway has 32% and UK has 5% according to this pro-gun site (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html)

I think there is a large difference in the type of guns between the US and Switzerland and Norway. I think handguns are more common in the US. In Norway it is more common to have a hunting rifle. In Switzerland (and possibly Norway, too), the numbers inlcude army personell with guns.

In Norway, all personell that are enlisted in the home defence have guns at home, but the barrells (or at least some small vital part which I'm not sure what is called) are now kept at military bases. The policy of keeping the vital parts at the bases was introduced a couple of years ago because of several incidents where these guns were used to commit homicide or suicide.

I do agree that it's not only gun policy and gun culture, but also other social and cultural factors, that affects the homicide rate, but all statistics that has been cited here indicate a correlation between handgun ownership and homicide rate.

And with regards to other crime ... I'd rather have my car stolen than my life taken.

[Desertrat]

FriarCrazy, the problem with those who ignore any issues surrounding the AW Ban is that it's only a part of a well-publicized effort to end individual possession of ANY firearm. So, you're stuck with "All hang together or be hanged separately." Remember, Senator Ted Kennedy has publicly declared the venerable .30-30 to be an armor piercing round...

Sorry again, gekko. You're wrong about the Bill of Rights. According to the folks who did write the supreme document of our country, these rights are enumerated in the BOR; they are not created by it. And, by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, there are other rights beyond what're enumerated in the first 8.

These rights exist in the absence of any government. They can only be denied by government or by any other group of evil-hearted people. People of Canada, England or Zimbabwe have these rights, even though their governments deny them to the people. I'm particularly thinking of our First Amendment...

But before you get off onto arguing about the BOR, if you disagree with what I've said, quote me the preamble to it--and tell me what you think as to what it says about the purpose of the BOR.

Re all this comparative numbers BS: For all practical purposes, the ownership of firearms by private citizens in Mexico is statistically insignificant, compared to the 40% of US homes with one or more firearms. Yet, the list shows Mexico to have a murder rate 3.25 times as high as the U.S. Ergo, no significant relationship between numbers of firearms in private ownership and murder rates.

:), 'Rat

[gekko513]

Sorry again, gekko. You're wrong about the Bill of Rights. According to the folks who did write the supreme document of our country, these rights are enumerated in the BOR; they are not created by it. And, by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, there are other rights beyond what're enumerated in the first 8.

These rights exist in the absence of any government. They can only be denied by government or by any other group of evil-hearted people. People of Canada, England or Zimbabwe have these rights, even though their governments deny them to the people. I'm particularly thinking of our First Amendment...

But before you get off onto arguing about the BOR, if you disagree with what I've said, quote me the preamble to it--and tell me what you think as to what it says about the purpose of the BOR.

Re all this comparative numbers BS: For all practical purposes, the ownership of firearms by private citizens in Mexico is statistically insignificant, compared to the 40% of US homes with one or more firearms. Yet, the list shows Mexico to have a murder rate 3.25 times as high as the U.S. Ergo, no significant relationship between numbers of firearms in private ownership and murder rates.

:), 'Rat
Now that you describe these Bill of Rights, I see that I don't really know what they are. Does anyone have a link a site that explains more about these rights. Edit: Trying to figure out what these BORs are. Are they a set of rights that several countries have declared, in their constitution, to be basic rights of their citizens? If that is the case, then these rights, as any other part of the constitution are and should still be debatable and changeable.

I don't understand how the Bill of Rights can grant rights to the people of England that the English government denies them?

Which 'they' were not created by which 'it'?

I like the way you describe government as a group of evil-hearted people, by the way ;)

I've not been able to find any real numbers for ownership of guns in Mexico. The guncite site listed it as n/a.

[takao]

hmm i guess nobody here has problem with hunting or hunting rifles ...after all i could go out and buy a 1-2 round shotgun hunting rifle...sure if i wanted to use it in public (aka: hunting) i would have to make the hunting-permittance or would have to be member of a 'schützenverein' aka "shooting associations" (more kinda re-enacting) but just for keeping at home i wouldn't have to inform anybody
since 1999 i can even buy bolt-action rifles without having a card but i have to register the gun...
the laws towards hunting have gotten _less_ restrictive in the last years but on the other side the laws towards handguns and semi-automatics got more strict
actually semiautomatic rifles are only allowed for hunting if the rifle has only 3 (2 in clip+ 1 in barrel) rounds max.

[Leo Hubbard]

I'll address that bill of rights thing first.

A constitution is just a set of rules made by people. They are supposed to be of a more fundamental nature than regular laws, and are therefore harder to change. They were however made by people and the situation at that time.

If some part of it doesn't make sense anymore, either because people are starting to feel different about it or because the world changes, then there is nothing wrong with changing the constitution.


Then they set up methods of changing the constitution with a 2/3rds majority in congress. Since those rules havn't been changed using the word "only" is misplaced when talking about our constitutional rights is misplaced.

[Desertrat]

takao, a program on the Outdoor Channel, last night, had some footage of hunting in Austria. It was stated that there are some 100,000+ hunters in Austria...

gekko, the founders apparently believed that rights are human rights, irrespective of location or mode of government. Rights are inherent in people just by being upright and breathing. "Endowed by our Creator." "Natural rights" if you will.

So, some didn't think the basic Constitution protected these rights in an adequate manner. Some colonies refused to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. So, we have the Bill of Rights. Again, they "enumerate" or list, rather than "grant".

The oft-ignored preamble states, basically, that the purpose of the BOR is to restrain the central government from abuse of its power. Thus it is a package of restraint upon the central government. As such, then it absolutely cannot be a restraint upon the people, the individual citizens. Again, one of those "You can't have it both ways!" deals.

'Rat

[gekko513]

I understand that it's not "only" the constitution and that it's a big deal. I'm also starting to understand what the BOR is.

These things were written by people, who had the best intentions. But they had to be a product of the time. Even the people who wrote it realized that the world could change and made it possible to legally change the rules with 2/3rds majority in congress.

As to the Bill of Rights being rights that are inherent to people and "Endowed by our creator". They were written by people not by an angel, right? Enough said about that, they're just like any other constitutional law.

The point I would like to make now is that the constitution and the law can not be used as a argument in a debate about what's the right or what's best for all people. If the constitution or the law in general has something to say on the subject, then the arguments that has to be used are the arguments that the law was based upon in the first place.

Let's say a debate that is based on fundamental arguments reaches a conclusion (which it generally doesn't) and the conclusion is contrary to the constitution, then the constitution could be the thing that is wrong.

[mactastic]

Indeed there is also the question of whether there are OTHER human rights that the BoR doesn't specifically mention. IOW, is the BoR a complete and exclusive list of all the rights we have as humans, or is it possible there are others that aren't mentioned in the BoR, but that we as humans have nonetheless?

[Desertrat]

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, mac, in answer to "...is it possible there are others that aren't mentioned in the BoR, but that we as humans have nonetheless?" the answer is "Yes."

And then we have the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Note the use of the word "delegated". The federal government has no inherent power, in and of itself, except as delegated to it by the votes of (now) some 290 million people through their representatives.

gekko, maybe another way to look at all this: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the secular equivalents of the Torah/Koran/Bible. They are written-down, codified, rules to live by. And until the process of change is followed in any particular, "They is what they is."

"As to the Bill of Rights being rights that are inherent to people and "Endowed by our creator". They were written by people not by an angel, right? Enough said about that, they're just like any other constitutional law."

They were written by a group with a belief system. That belief system exists today. So, no, they're not just like any other constitutional law. A bit of semantics, I guess: Laws passed by our Congress must meet the test of agreement with the Constitution. These laws are subordinate to the Constitution.

A key to the whole thing, to repeat, is that we regard "rights" as inherent in being human, regardless of location. In this country, this concept is codified. In almost all other countries, it is not.

Who knows? Maybe that's why we're such busybodies, running around the world trying to impose our view of human rights on those rulers who disagree. For those who point to, say, Iraq, note that I didn't say we're correct in how we do things--which is a separate matter. :)

'Rat

[skunk]

A key to the whole thing, to repeat, is that we regard "rights" as inherent in being human, regardless of location. In this country, this concept is codified. In almost all other countries, it is not.
Good stuff on the Constitution, thanks, although I should point out that human rights are codified in Europe as well.

Who knows? Maybe that's why we're such busybodies, running around the world trying to impose our view of human rights on those rulers who disagree. For those who point to, say, Iraq, note that I didn't say we're correct in how we do things--which is a separate matter.
I do not recognize this characterization: given a choice between a regime for the people and a regime for the rulers, the US does favour the latter with depressing consistency, cf. Venezuela, Haiti, Chile, etc., etc.

[IJ Reilly]

I do not recognize this characterization: given a choice between a regime for the people and a regime for the rulers, the US does favour the latter with depressing consistency, cf. Venezuela, Haiti, Chile, etc., etc.

Perhaps, but what I think is being said here is that the Constitution is often used as America's codpiece for imposing itself on others. It isn't so much a matter of enforcing high-minded ideals as it is using those high-minded ideals as cover to obtain something else. Example: All rhetoric about political freedom and human rights aside, I think the Bush administration would be perfectly happy to have an authoritarian regime installed in Iraq, provided it was friendly to our interests.

[gekko513]

This whole discussion about the BoR reminds me a little of an argument I heard quite often when discussing the Iraq war before it started with Americans. It goes something like, "but we must support our president".

That's one of the lamest arguments I've heard in my entire internet-debate-career :) The president is there to support the people, not the other way around.

The same goes for the constitution and the BoR, they are there for the good of the people, if the people suffer because of it or disagree with it, then it should change.

Let me also add that nothing indicates that there is a sufficient majority in the US to support a change to the BoR which currently allow people to own small killing machines, so I think you (Rat and Leo) have nothing to worry about.

I just don't accept that because something says so in the BoR then that's end of discussion.

[mischief]

The AWB was a joke when written but has been SERIOUSLY reworked (in California) since it's inception. The current ban is quite inclusive and covers specific models AND their variants. In it's current version it's VERY thorough.

I agree that the original Brady Bill was a waste of paper however.

http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/roberti.htm

[Desertrat]

skunk commented, "...although I should point out that human rights are codified in Europe as well."

Two things: First, can any changes to what we have in our BOR be made by the government without recourse to the voters? (I don't know, myself.)

Second: Compare our media's First Amendment rights with the British government's power to order the media to not print or say certain things.

Moving to a European-style country, in Canada it is not a defense in a trial for libel that the statements made were factual. Liability can be found if the statements created some perceived harm. In the U.S., fact is an adequate defense.

gekko, I'm in accord with "I just don't accept that because something says so in the BoR then that's end of discussion." Plenty of room for discussion so long as it's remembered that the BOR is supreme in law. The theory is that the US of A is "a government of laws, not of men" and I'd add, "and not of opinion polls."

'Rat

[gekko513]

... Two things: First, can any changes to what we have in our BOR be made by the government without recourse to the voters? (I don't know, myself.)
...
gekko, I'm in accord with "I just don't accept that because something says so in the BoR then that's end of discussion." Plenty of room for discussion so long as it's remembered that the BOR is supreme in law. The theory is that the US of A is "a government of laws, not of men" and I'd add, "and not of opinion polls."

'Rat

I don't know, either. It sounds like a thing that would involve a "folkeavstemning" = national vote?

I think I agree with "the BOR is supreme in law". I'm a bit uncertain if I understand what that means. I think it means that as long as the BOR stands the way it stands, then it must be respected and followed, in which case, I agree. I'm not in favor of civil disobedience (or government disobedience for that matter), unless, of course, the democracy in the nation is somehow corrupted.

[skunk]

"folkeavstemning" = national vote?
Referendum?

[gekko513]

Sorry again, gekko. You're wrong about the Bill of Rights. According to the folks who did write the supreme document of our country, these rights are enumerated in the BOR; they are not created by it. And, by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, there are other rights beyond what're enumerated in the first 8.

These rights exist in the absence of any government. They can only be denied by government or by any other group of evil-hearted people. People of Canada, England or Zimbabwe have these rights, even though their governments deny them to the people. I'm particularly thinking of our First Amendment...

I didn't get what you're saying until now, even when I read IJ Reilly's comments.

You're actually saying that the Bill of Rights, ratified by the states that make up the United States of America define human rights that also apply to people of all other nations. And that the countries who have a constitution or other laws that go against the Bill of Rights are wrong or actually even evil-hearted.

That is a HUGE INSULT! :mad:

I found the idea that one country could make laws or define rights that should apply in other countries so absurd that I was very puzzled by your comment and didn't figure out what you were saying until now.

[skunk]

I didn't get what you're saying until now, even when I read IJ Reilly's comments.

You're actually saying that the Bill of Rights, ratified by the states that make up the United States of America define human rights that also apply to people of all other nations. And that the countries who have a constitution or other laws that go against the Bill of Rights are wrong or actually even evil-hearted.

That is a HUGE INSULT! :mad:

I found the idea that one country could make laws or define rights that should apply in other countries so absurd that I was very puzzled by your comment and didn't figure out what you were saying until now.
I'm glad you re-read it, too. I re-read it myself, and I still couldn't quite grasp the enormity of 'Rat's comments. You're right, it is an extraordinary statement. He is saying in effect that the authors of the Bill of Rights are the mouthpiece of God. Very fundamentalist. We'll have to watch that one: maybe it's something in the water down in Texas?

[mactastic]

So what happens if other countries enumerate rights that they say every human has but we don't have them here? Say for instance that some country decided that access to medical care was a fundamental human right. Would we be bound to accept that decision and offer it ourselves? What if the rest of the world ganged up on us and decided to invade the US because we didn't fully protect human rights? Would they have a right to do so? For our own good you know...

[skunk]

The possibilities are mind-boggling! :D :eek:

[Desertrat]

The writers of the BOR presumed that any person, anywhere, has the right to assemble. Has the right to a fair trial. Has the right of compensation for property taken by government. They--and I--presume these rights exist whether or not there's any government at all, anywhere. Where there indeed is a government, it must be restrained against abuse of its powers by such as the BOR.

Now, these rights might or might not be of interest to people outside the US of A. Fine with me. I don't know why somebody would be content with the muzzling of the media available to the British government, but that's really not my problem nor my business. If the right of self defense is of little or no interest to others, fine--but that does not mean the right does not exist. If people are unaware of the existence of certain rights, again that's not my problem. If their own legal structure suits them, fine by me. That their legal structure has not enumerated fundamental human rights, groovy.

Before folks go baying at the moon over the idea that "rights" include freebies from the tax dollars taken in by government, notice that nowhere in our BOR or in later amendments is there any right for a citizen to take money from other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there anything that says you have right to my money because you screwed up your life such that you don't have any. Nowhere at all does it GIVE you anything. It only lists some of the things government may not do to you.

Something like free health insurance is not a right. It could be granted by government, sure--but that's a privilege, not a right.

The whole deal of the U.S. is the pursuit of happiness, with no guarantees you'll ever get anywhere near it. Only an individual can define it for himself, and only an individual--with his family group, I hope--can achieve it.

'Rat

[takao]

The whole deal of the U.S. is the pursuit of happiness, with no guarantees you'll ever get anywhere near it. Only an individual can define it for himself, and only an individual--with his family group, I hope--can achieve it.

'Rat

well i hope it too..but from my experience everybody who visited the US (some of them were _huge_ fans of the US and it's culture..) and all of them were happy to be back after a few weeks/months because it's 'scary' and 'crazy' over there

and on the other side i know americans (the ones from the USA) who would loved to stay here if they could ...and 1 who actually is living here now

put that's only my experience

i don't know ... perhaps on the whole 'pursuit of happiness' journey the goal got lost somehow in the US

[skunk]

The writers of the BOR presumed that any person, anywhere, has the right to assemble. Has the right to a fair trial. Has the right of compensation for property taken by government. They--and I--presume these rights exist whether or not there's any government at all, anywhere. Where there indeed is a government, it must be restrained against abuse of its powers by such as the BOR.
Hmmm. Several million slaves, filipinos and native americans might have difficulty recognizing this analysis.

Now, these rights might or might not be of interest to people outside the US of A. Fine with me. I don't know why somebody would be content with the muzzling of the media available to the British government, but that's really not my problem nor my business.
Strange how you harp on about the "muzzling of the media" in the UK.The UK media have been far more outspoken than the US media. The US press doesn't even need muzzling: they do it themselves, voluntarily.

If the right of self defense is of little or no interest to others, fine--but that does not mean the right does not exist. If people are unaware of the existence of certain rights, again that's not my problem. If their own legal structure suits them, fine by me. That their legal structure has not enumerated fundamental human rights, groovy.
This is a very odd position, 'Rat. Where do these "rights" come from? They do not "exist" in a vacuum: they were nothing but a philosophical ideal which your erstwhile leaders chose to espouse. They have no independent existence, or any priority over anyone else's ideals. You may regard them as the political Ten Commandments, but there are other Holy Books.

Before folks go baying at the moon over the idea that "rights" include freebies from the tax dollars taken in by government, notice that nowhere in our BOR or in later amendments is there any right for a citizen to take money from other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there anything that says you have right to my money because you screwed up your life such that you don't have any. Nowhere at all does it GIVE you anything. It only lists some of the things government may not do to you.
Something like free health insurance is not a right. It could be granted by government, sure--but that's a privilege, not a right.

The whole deal of the U.S. is the pursuit of happiness, with no guarantees you'll ever get anywhere near it. Only an individual can define it for himself, and only an individual--with his family group, I hope--can achieve it.
Why not let those who cannot afford healthcare just die quietly? Why have public schools? Why have trade tariffs? Why allow corporations to plead the 5th? Why overthrow foreign governments? Why look outside your borders at all? Self-evident truths? It's all a matter of opinion.

[Desertrat]

takao, I guess it's what you're used to. Maybe. I've lived in three other countries (counting military tours in S. Korea and Paris) and travelled extensively in another 16 or so. Other than language problems, I never was particularly disturbed by local manners and mores. But that's just me, I guess; I started this stuff in my teen years.

My son lives in southern Germany near Lindenberg in the foothills of the Bavarian Alps. Neat area, and he's quite happy with the "little world" he and his wife have created. Lots of friends, remunerative work, plenty of playtime. I'm happy for him, although my own little desert playground is different.

Multitudes of different reactions to "otherness" or "culture shock". :)

All that said, I sure won't argue with anybody who believes that "happiness" in the U.S. seems to be tied up with toys, trinkets and material "stuff". Me, I just never really have been "all eat-up with the I-wants". I have a lot of stuff, but most of it's pretty well worn from decades of use.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

From skunk:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertrat
The writers of the BOR presumed that any person, anywhere, has the right to assemble. Has the right to a fair trial. Has the right of compensation for property taken by government. They--and I--presume these rights exist whether or not there's any government at all, anywhere. Where there indeed is a government, it must be restrained against abuse of its powers by such as the BOR.
Hmmm. Several million slaves, filipinos and native americans might have difficulty recognizing this analysis."

That an idea has not been fulfilled doesn't mean it's not valid. And, after a lot of squabbling, the U.S. definition of "person" has certainly been expanded.

As for "Strange how you harp on about the "muzzling of the media" in the UK.The UK media have been far more outspoken than the US media. The US press doesn't even need muzzling: they do it themselves, voluntarily."

Not strange. I harp on it as an aspect of government power to restrain by executive fiat. If the U.S. press chooses to not be outspoken, that's also its right. The issue is not the behavior, but governmental control of the behavior.

"Where do these "rights" come from? They do not "exist" in a vacuum: they were nothing but a philosophical ideal which your erstwhile leaders chose to espouse."

"Nothing but"? Isn't the history of homo sap a search for philosophical ideals? There's a whole bunch of philosophers' names in the centuries between Plato and Russell. Our erstwhile leaders sought these ideals as a way to maximize individual liberty while establishing a government.

"They have no independent existence, or any priority over anyone else's ideals."

Certainly they have an independent existence. Ideas are just sittin' out there, waiting to be thought up. :D But I do agree they don't have any priority over anyone else's ideals; Marx/Lenin just never recognized this. Again, subscribing to an ideal is voluntary. You don't have to believe you should have liberty.

"Why not let those who cannot afford healthcare just die quietly? Why have public schools? Why have trade tariffs? Why allow corporations to plead the 5th? Why overthrow foreign governments? Why look outside your borders at all? Self-evident truths? It's all a matter of opinion."

That certain things are not inherent rights does not mean they are not Good Things. We are working on improving our ways of health care, regardless of the inefficiencies in the methodology. All ya gotta do is compare the present with sixty years ago. We've always supported the idea of education as a Good Thing for society.

Why not allow corporations to plead the 5th? The law has defined a corporation as a person insofar as many legal matters.

Overthrowing foreign governments or looking outside borders is not a constitutional matter, insofar as what's written. The Constitution recognizes the possibility of war, but the need is defined by Congress and the Executive branches.

Sure, all this is a "matter of opinion". So far, thought, these opinions built into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have done a pretty good job when compared to dictatorships or kings or thugocracies.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

That certain things are not inherent rights does not mean they are not Good Things. We are working on improving our ways of health care, regardless of the inefficiencies in the methodology. All ya gotta do is compare the present with sixty years ago. We've always supported the idea of education as a Good Thing for society.

Interesting. I've made precisely the same argument when it comes to private ownership of weapons. I think we should be able to discuss that issue completely apart from the Constitution which after all hasn't been interpreted by the courts to provide a broad gun ownership right.

[mactastic]

Your right to due process costs me money. Your right to assemble costs me money. Who do you think makes due process happen? Who pays for the cleanup after you peaceably assemble? If rights shouldn't cost money, I assume you would be in favor of abolishing these...

[Leo Hubbard]

Your right to due process costs me money. Your right to assemble costs me money. Who do you think makes due process happen? Who pays for the cleanup after you peaceably assemble? If rights shouldn't cost money, I assume you would be in favor of abolishing these...
Sounds to me maybe we should start charging these people for cleanup. If they can't pay, they can't assemble. :confused:

[mischief]

Why not allow corporations to plead the 5th? The law has defined a corporation as a person insofar as many legal matters.

'Rat

I think that practice is inherently unwise in many ways. Consider that if we're applying one of the amendments to a Corp, does it not follow to apply others?

Do we want Corps to have Second Amendment rights? Would there be a waiting period?

Are Corps subject to equal protection?

Are we going to apply other individual rights to Corps?

Should they be allowed to Adopt? Marry? Form Civil Unions? Claim each other as Dependants?

Should they be allowed to file 1040 EZ's?

Should Equal Protection read " Any race, creed, religion or Corporate structure"?

Sorry... I find that treating an inherently sociopathic entity the same as a citizen is a little over the top and fundamentally dilutes the BoR's significance.

[gekko513]

Only corporations of opposite sex should be allowed to marry :p

[Leo Hubbard]

Only corporations of opposite sex should be allowed to marry :p
Funny, but I think the law states between a man and a woman thus the sex of the corporation would be immaterial, it would still not be allowed to marry.