Ban on USA Assault weapons set to lapse

[Cowperson]

A ban on military-style assault weapons in the United States is to lapse on Monday, 10 years after it was passed. The move means that ordinary citizens will be allowed to keep heavy assault weapons in their homes.

I mentioned in another thread there were 16,204 murders in the USA in 2002, about 11,000 by gunfire (an average year) versus the 1000 American soldiers who died in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm

Cowperson

[sbailey924]

I did my part in calling my three Congressmen, telling them to extend it. Too bad they aren't going to listen to me, since they are all pretty conservative Republicans.

There's no sense in having these legal. There are already too many "pre-ban" assault weapons that can be easily bought at gun shows. Too many people think that gun control laws are going to overrun their right to own guns entirely. I personally don't think that any civilian should have the right to own an assault weapon, designed for military/police use to kill people...but that's just me.

[CaptainCrunch]

devils advocate here

what about collectors

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 10 2004, 08:58 PM
devils advocate here

what about collectors

Let them collect Tonka toys.

An interesting side argument is that lifting the ban on assault weapons actually helps terrorists planning attacks in America.

Cowperson

[troutman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Rock : You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? Bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5000. You know why? If a bullet cost $5000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders.

From "Bowling for Columbine".

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 10 2004, 08:58 PM
devils advocate here

what about collectors

Have the barrels filled.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 10 2004, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 10 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Sep 10 2004, 08:58 PM
devils advocate here

what about collectors

Let them collect Tonka toys.

An interesting side argument is that lifting the ban on assault weapons actually helps terrorists planning attacks in America.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Hmm interesting, so as a state your dictating against what a person can collect, even a legitimate collector. Aren't you now impeding on several constitutional issues.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against people having active assault rifles in thier posesssion, I've seen what they can do, and how easy it is to do it with one.

The whole gun business is a pretty tight balancing act of the good of the people vs the good of the U.S. Constitution.

But the constitution was probably not written with an ak-47 with a laser scope in mind.

So the debate comes into play.

When do the limits of the constitution end and the good of the people begin?

On the whole terrorist planning cell looking at the common man having a machine gun, I don't know how that would come into play. Is there really planning involved? or do you just look at your guys and make them aware that somebody might stumble into thier action with a boozoka. I don't know if it would really make a difference.

[sbailey924]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 10 2004, 05:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 10 2004, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Sep 10 2004, 08:58 PM
devils advocate here

what about collectors

Let them collect Tonka toys.

An interesting side argument is that lifting the ban on assault weapons actually helps terrorists planning attacks in America.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Yeah, imported assault weapons would be legal again, too. I'm sure Tom Ridge would have great fun trying to regulate all of those.

As far as collectors, I don't know how feasible it would be to take out firing pins or whatever mechanism allows them to be fired. Obviously they wouldn't be that hard to reproduce. I guess it's just something they would have to deal with, which won't make them happy. The people who probably deserve to have them as collectibles - ex-military personnel keeping "war trophies" - would probably still be allowed to keep them (I'm not positive about this).

EDIT: Maybe if there was an official collector certification someone could achieve, that might help some too. Again, it may not be that feasable.

[Lurch]

This one is very interesting. From the neo-cons: Drop the ban, as it limits Americans fundamental rights. Yet the neo-cons are very pro-patriot act, despite the fact that it infringes on individual rights (to what extent is debatable, but the direction is clear).

From the left: uphold the ban and protect innocent Americans. Drop the Patriot Act and protect individual freedoms.

I'd like to see a third axis on the political spectrum, which we could call the rational. You can be rational left, rational right, irrational right or irrational left. Four quandrants instead of a 2 dimensional spectrum.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by sbailey924+Sep 10 2004, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sbailey924 @ Sep 10 2004, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Let them collect Tonka toys.

An interesting side argument is that lifting the ban on assault weapons actually helps terrorists planning attacks in America.

Cowperson

Yeah, imported assault weapons would be legal again, too. I'm sure Tom Ridge would have great fun trying to regulate all of those.

As far as collectors, I don't know how feasible it would be to take out firing pins or whatever mechanism allows them to be fired. Obviously they wouldn't be that hard to reproduce. I guess it's just something they would have to deal with, which won't make them happy. The people who probably deserve to have them as collectibles - ex-military personnel keeping "war trophies" - would probably still be allowed to keep them (I'm not positive about this). [/b][/quote]
removing a firing pin or a breech block on a automatic weapon is just as easily done as converting a semi auto ar-15 to a full automatic (but impossible to control) rifle. All you need is the right tools and small hands.

But if you deactivate these weapons your impacting on thier value.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 10 2004, 09:08 PM
I'm gonna start a new hobby, nuclear warhead collecting.

If you have weapons grade plutonium, you can probably build your own with some parts from radio shack, a lathe, a jigsaw, and some high quality plastic explosives.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 09:10 PM
This one is very interesting. From the neo-cons: Drop the ban, as it limits Americans fundamental rights. Yet the neo-cons are very pro-patriot act, despite the fact that it infringes on individual rights (to what extent is debatable, but the direction is clear).

From the left: uphold the ban and protect innocent Americans. Drop the Patriot Act and protect individual freedoms.

I'd like to see a third axis on the political spectrum, which we could call the rational. You can be rational left, rational right, irrational right or irrational left. Four quandrants instead of a 2 dimensional spectrum.

From the right, its a conflicting statement, with the Patriot act possibly attempting to cover holes created by individual freedoms.

From the left. Uphold the ban, protect innocent americans and drop the patriot act, but if thats true you can't uphold the ban, because your affecting individual freedoms.

Neither the left or the right can look at this issue without going against thier base political instincts.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 09:10 PM
This one is very interesting. From the neo-cons: Drop the ban, as it limits Americans fundamental rights. Yet the neo-cons are very pro-patriot act, despite the fact that it infringes on individual rights (to what extent is debatable, but the direction is clear).

From the left: uphold the ban and protect innocent Americans. Drop the Patriot Act and protect individual freedoms.

I'd like to see a third axis on the political spectrum, which we could call the rational. You can be rational left, rational right, irrational right or irrational left. Four quandrants instead of a 2 dimensional spectrum.

So would I! Excellent post.

I believe in gun rights....but there is no reason that American citizens should be allowed to keep assault rifles that are fireable. I like the idea that the barrels be filled for collectors.

Now, the ban isn't going to stop bad guys from getting ahold of these things....but it will make it more difficult for Jon Doe who just lost his marriage, job and dog to go on a bloody rampage at his former work place. Yeah, he could still take in a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol...but I'd sure as hell rather face someone with one of those weapons than some insane guy with a weapon that fires 800 rounds a minute.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 10 2004, 09:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 10 2004, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 09:10 PM
This one is very interesting. From the neo-cons: Drop the ban, as it limits Americans fundamental rights. Yet the neo-cons are very pro-patriot act, despite the fact that it infringes on individual rights (to what extent is debatable, but the direction is clear).

From the left: uphold the ban and protect innocent Americans. Drop the Patriot Act and protect individual freedoms.

I'd like to see a third axis on the political spectrum, which we could call the rational. You can be rational left, rational right, irrational right or irrational left. Four quandrants instead of a 2 dimensional spectrum.

So would I! Excellent post.

I believe in gun rights....but there is no reason that American citizens should be allowed to keep assault rifles that are fireable. I like the idea that the barrels be filled for collectors.

Now, the ban isn't going to stop bad guys from getting ahold of these things....but it will make it more difficult for Jon Doe who just lost his marriage, job and dog to go on a bloody rampage at his former work place. Yeah, he could still take in a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol...but I'd sure as hell rather face someone with one of those weapons than some insane guy with a weapon that fires 800 rounds a minute. [/b][/quote]
Actually in the case of a mad lunatic with a weapon its probably preferable to have him using a full auto weapon.

They're impossible for the average person to use skillfully due to thier climb factor, weight, accuracy, ammo requirements etc

A person with a semi auto pistol or rifle is going to be far more effective due to the fact that your forced to aim after every shot.

I'm all for banning fully automatic weapons from the hands if any person. The system thats in place should work if it was properly enforced.

This is more of a constitutional time bomb in the states.

Can the U.S. government just sign the ban into a law for another set period, or is this going to be another ugly supreme court issue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Who says that disgruntled office murderers are average people?

80% of the people I work with are ex-military and we have the international reputation for these kind of incidents.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 10 2004, 09:28 PM
Who says that disgruntled office murderers are average people?

80% of the people I work with are ex-military and we have the international reputation for these kind of incidents.

granted, all I'm saying is that a automatic weapon in the hands of a deranged lunatic or urban terrorist is no more dangerous than a semi auto rifle or .357 magnum.

[Lurch]

From the right, its a conflicting statement, with the Patriot act possibly attempting to cover holes created by individual freedoms.

From the left. Uphold the ban, protect innocent americans and drop the patriot act, but if thats true you can't uphold the ban, because your affecting individual freedoms.

Neither the left or the right can look at this issue without going against thier base political instincts.

Isn't this what I said, or did my post come off as saying one side was rational and the other not. If so, my intent can be summarized by your final line.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 09:33 PM

Isn't this what I said, or did my post come off as saying one side was rational and the other not. If so, my intent can be summarized by your final line.

Sorry it came accross to me as one side being more rational then the other.

I guess I'm getting touchy

[RougeUnderoos]

I have my bias (it's left-leaning, btw).

Now that that's out of the way -- I think it is perfectly irrational to allow someone to own one of these weapons.

I saw Brady's wife on tv (Mrs.Brady) and the poor woman seemed a little flabbergasted about the whole thing. "George will sign it if they ask him to, they won't send him the bill unless he asks for it..."was how she seemed to put it.

She went all the way back to Gerald Ford and included Reagan and Bush The Elder in a list of people who had worked towards this ban and now it's all gone.

The Democrats suck, incidentally. He waits until today to bring this up? Come on man. (Although it would have looked bad if he harped on it and then Bush did sign the thing).

[RougeUnderoos]

The post so nice I posted it twice.