assault weapons ban

[NewCreation435]

this is an article in Time magainze written by Bill Clinton

"In one weekend, 31 people were murdered and dozens more injured in two mass shootings just hours apart in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The death toll may still grow. The shooters killed the young and old, men and women. In El Paso, the white-nationalist shooter’s intent was to claim as many Latino lives as possible. In both cities, the victims had their tomorrows taken or their futures forever altered by domestic terrorists as they shopped or enjoyed an evening out–everyday activities we all expect to pursue in safety. And in both cases, the gunmen used military-style assault weapons that were purchased legally.

America is reacting as we have come to expect in the wake of mass shootings. Thoughts and prayers are offered, as they should be. Communities come together, as they should, in vigils to remember those lost and injured and to remind ourselves that we shouldn’t keep letting this happen. Elected officials speak about the need for change. But the tragedies do keep happening, while the one thing that we know can reduce the number and the death tolls of mass shootings has not been done: reinstituting the ban on assault weapons and the limit on high-capacity magazines that was in effect from 1994 to 2004."

rest of article here
https://time.com/5647319/bill-clinton-assault-weapons-column/

Your thoughts on putting another ban like this in place? What about all the weapons already available and on the streets?

 

[MennoSota]

Fertilizer and deisel fuel destroyed an entire Federal building and killed hundreds of lives.
Evil people, bent on evil actions, will do evil things. And...if God has chosen not to stop it, it will happen.
That being said, I see no practical reason to have a gun that shoots more than 5 bullets. If I am a conscientious hunter, I won't pull the trigger on my prey until I know I have a shot that will kill the animal I am hunting. But, an unexpected turn may mean I miss the kill on shot one. For the sake of the animal I may need another shot. There is no need to have more than 5 bullets in the clip.
As for the "assault rifle" the gun is light and has little recoil. It is a very good rifle for a hunter who might struggle to carry and use a heavy rifle with a big kick. Women and children find the newer rifles easier to shoot. Since we are rapidly losing hunters and the deer population is swelling (as well as far too many geese), we need more conscientious hunters. Allow them guns that they can handle...but...we only need 5 shots.
Finally, since regulating guns seems so hard...why not regulate ammunition and the sale of shells. Reduce and regulate the amount of ammo and you reduce rounds available.

 

[tango]

It's back to the same tired notion that apparently a majority support something that is ill-defined and unlikely to be effective.

There are already so many AR-15 style rifles out there that it would be all but impossible to recall them all. Even if an up-to-date database existed of everyone who has ever acquired one (and if there is it will be of limited use since it will mostly cover lawful gun owners), you can be sure that at the first sign of a recall people will report their weapons lost in boating accidents or similar.

There's also the inconvenient truth that rifles account for a fairly small percentage of homicides and, of those, AR-15 style rifles account for an even smaller percentage. Not to mention the stupidity of endlessly trying to solve a problem by going after the people who didn't do it. You might as well label vehicles like the Ford F-150 as "assault vehicles" and try to ban "vehicles like the F-150" because of a handful of cases of reckless driving involving them.

 

[Forgiven1]

There were more murdered that weekend in Chicago than in the two mass shootings combined. Guess what? Chicago and Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. How are those working for them?

 

[tango]

Fertilizer and deisel fuel destroyed an entire Federal building and killed hundreds of lives.
Evil people, bent on evil actions, will do evil things. And...if God has chosen not to stop it, it will happen.
That being said, I see no practical reason to have a gun that shoots more than 5 bullets. If I am a conscientious hunter, I won't pull the trigger on my prey until I know I have a shot that will kill the animal I am hunting. But, an unexpected turn may mean I miss the kill on shot one. For the sake of the animal I may need another shot. There is no need to have more than 5 bullets in the clip.
As for the "assault rifle" the gun is light and has little recoil. It is a very good rifle for a hunter who might struggle to carry and use a heavy rifle with a big kick. Women and children find the newer rifles easier to shoot. Since we are rapidly losing hunters and the deer population is swelling (as well as far too many geese), we need more conscientious hunters. Allow them guns that they can handle...but...we only need 5 shots.
Finally, since regulating guns seems so hard...why not regulate ammunition and the sale of shells. Reduce and regulate the amount of ammo and you reduce rounds available.

Very true that bad people will find a way to do bad things.

The trouble with the thinking about hunting is that it misses the point entirely. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. If you're keeping a firearm for self-defense (or home defense) you need something that will dispatch the bad guys, who may be plural. You're also talking about a situation where you might need a second (or a third, or more, depending on the situation) to stop one individual attacker. Since you're going to be under a huge amount of stress you're going to need extra ammo in case your first shot misses (or if you decide to fire a warning shot).

Regulating ammo simply creates the same kind of problem that you get in places like NY, where the rich and powerful can have firearms and the riff-raff can't.

Personally I would start with the basic concept of the right to life. A right is worthless without the freedom to defend the right from people who would try to take it from us. Therefore, if I have the right to life, I must also have the freedom to protect my life from anyone who might harm me. If the danger to my life is coming from six guys with baseball bats, I must be able to defend myself with something that gives me at least a fighting chance. One man against six guys half my age with baseball bats is a pretty uneven fight and about the only thing that will level the scale is a firearm, and I'm going to need more than 5 bullets in it.

 

[tango]

There were more murdered that weekend in Chicago than in the two mass shootings combined. Guess what? Chicago and Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. How are those working for them?

If the laws don't work it is obvious that what we need is more laws that won't work either. Apparently.

 

[Bluezone777]

The second amendment isn't about self defense either at least not from the thief or the criminal. It's the right to defend oneself from one's own government if they should ever decide to become tyrants. One mistake people make is they read these amendments from the perspective of a 21st century person when in fact they need to be read from the perspective from a 18th century person. That is the amendment's initial audience and was written with them in mind as to how it was conveyed. These were a people who just toppled a tyrannical government and won their freedom and the first thing they ensured was that the people would have the right to defend itself from its own government. It's rather telling that the amendment giving men the right to bare arms immediately follows the 1st amendment. I figure it as the main goal of government should be to ensure that people are free to express themselves without undue influence of the government and the second amendment's purpose is for this people to be able to defend themselves from anyone who would try to steal away the first amendment. If the second falls, the first will fall next and with it go all your freedoms.

The real problem is that America as a whole insists on remaining godless and as long as it does, things will only become worse. The day this nation of ours repents is the day things begin to turn around for the better. These shootings are but one of the many rotten fruits associated with a godless country that has turned its back on God and insists on being disobedient to His Word.

 

[Josiah]

It's back to the same tired notion that apparently a majority support something that is ill-defined and unlikely to be effective.

There are already so many AR-15 style rifles out there that it would be all but impossible to recall them all. Even if an up-to-date database existed of everyone who has ever acquired one (and if there is it will be of limited use since it will mostly cover lawful gun owners), you can be sure that at the first sign of a recall people will report their weapons lost in boating accidents or similar.

There's also the inconvenient truth that rifles account for a fairly small percentage of homicides and, of those, AR-15 style rifles account for an even smaller percentage. Not to mention the stupidity of endlessly trying to solve a problem by going after the people who didn't do it. You might as well label vehicles like the Ford F-150 as "assault vehicles" and try to ban "vehicles like the F-150" because of a handful of cases of reckless driving involving them.

On target


Liberalism is entirely about FEELINGS, emotions..... They like to do something that Mr. Roger's would do, for the reason he'd do it, so that we FEEL better. Never mind that it would accomplish nothing.


On a related note, last week we had a mass stabbing. Several killed by a man with a knife. Interestingly, it got nearly zero attention from the press and NO calls for anything.

 

[Josiah]

The second amendment isn't about self defense either at least not from the thief or the criminal. It's the right to defend oneself from one's own government if they should ever decide to become tyrants. One mistake people make is they read these amendments from the perspective of a 21st century person when in fact they need to be read from the perspective from a 18th century person. That is the amendment's initial audience and was written with them in mind as to how it was conveyed. These were a people who just toppled a tyrannical government and won their freedom and the first thing they ensured was that the people would have the right to defend itself from its own government. It's rather telling that the amendment giving men the right to bare arms immediately follows the 1st amendment. I figure it as the main goal of government should be to ensure that people are free to express themselves without undue influence of the government and the second amendment's purpose is for this people to be able to defend themselves from anyone who would try to steal away the first amendment. If the second falls, the first will fall next and with it go all your freedoms.

The real problem is that America as a whole insists on remaining godless and as long as it does, things will only become worse. The day this nation of ours repents is the day things begin to turn around for the better. These shootings are but one of the many rotten fruits associated with a godless country that has turned its back on God and insists on being disobedient to His Word.

Yup. At least that's what my Early American History class prof taught..... The American Revolution was POSSIBLE only because every American male over the age of 10 had a gun - and could use it (well). The first thing any dictator does is try to eliminate guns in the hands of the people. You'd think this would be in vain in this modern world, but consider the Cuban revolution or the Hungry Rebellion, even now... The Second Amendment was not about hunting or self - defense or sport (although those were the uses for all those guns, once a UNIVERSAL American possession), the reason was a "check" on government, part of the whole "checks and balances" mentality of our founding, part of the whole "Government is something to fear" mentality that is quite a (unique) aspect of our nation.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Very true that bad people will find a way to do bad things.

The trouble with the thinking about hunting is that it misses the point entirely. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. If you're keeping a firearm for self-defense (or home defense) you need something that will dispatch the bad guys, who may be plural. You're also talking about a situation where you might need a second (or a third, or more, depending on the situation) to stop one individual attacker. Since you're going to be under a huge amount of stress you're going to need extra ammo in case your first shot misses (or if you decide to fire a warning shot).

Regulating ammo simply creates the same kind of problem that you get in places like NY, where the rich and powerful can have firearms and the riff-raff can't.

Personally I would start with the basic concept of the right to life. A right is worthless without the freedom to defend the right from people who would try to take it from us. Therefore, if I have the right to life, I must also have the freedom to protect my life from anyone who might harm me. If the danger to my life is coming from six guys with baseball bats, I must be able to defend myself with something that gives me at least a fighting chance. One man against six guys half my age with baseball bats is a pretty uneven fight and about the only thing that will level the scale is a firearm, and I'm going to need more than 5 bullets in it.

As a Christian I know my days are numbered by God and God alone. I know that God ordains the situations that occur every moment of my life. I find no reason to fear "bad guys" for indeed, we are all "bad guys."
I do not think we are interpreting the 2nd Amendment correctly.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment gives the right to have a well regulated militia which can keep and bear arms. It does not say a well armed individual has the right to bear arms.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment gives the States the right to have an armory in which the regulated militia of individual citizens (brought together to fight) will acquire the weapons to defend the homeland.
The key is well regulated militia.
Unfortunately, the first phrase is ignored and thus interpreted that unregulated individuals have the right to freely acquire weapons. Such an interpretation has allowed citizens to stockpile weapons for their own kingdom rather than to defend the homeland. It actually goes against the intent of the founders.

 

[tango]

The second amendment isn't about self defense either at least not from the thief or the criminal. It's the right to defend oneself from one's own government if they should ever decide to become tyrants. One mistake people make is they read these amendments from the perspective of a 21st century person when in fact they need to be read from the perspective from a 18th century person. That is the amendment's initial audience and was written with them in mind as to how it was conveyed. These were a people who just toppled a tyrannical government and won their freedom and the first thing they ensured was that the people would have the right to defend itself from its own government. It's rather telling that the amendment giving men the right to bare arms immediately follows the 1st amendment. I figure it as the main goal of government should be to ensure that people are free to express themselves without undue influence of the government and the second amendment's purpose is for this people to be able to defend themselves from anyone who would try to steal away the first amendment. If the second falls, the first will fall next and with it go all your freedoms.

The real problem is that America as a whole insists on remaining godless and as long as it does, things will only become worse. The day this nation of ours repents is the day things begin to turn around for the better. These shootings are but one of the many rotten fruits associated with a godless country that has turned its back on God and insists on being disobedient to His Word.

True, although "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is sufficiently broad in scope that it makes no sense at all to argue whether any given individual needs 10 rounds, 20 rounds, an AR-15 or whatever else. If you're going to defend yourself from your own government you need adequate firepower to do so. Just how much firepower is required is a matter of much speculation. I read an interesting article some months back about what a second civil war might look like which played out two scenarios - one in which a Democrat-controlled government essentially went to war on Republican-leaning gun owners; the other in which a Republican-controlled government essentially went to war on Democrat-controlled gun-free areas, and concluded in both cases the gun owners would probably win. At face value it seems absurd to think that a bunch of hunters in rural Wisconsin could defeat a government tank regiment but, as the article said, if you're fighting tanks with hunting rifles you don't engage in head-on combat. Instead you hide in the woods, that you know well and the invading force doesn't know as well. You attack supply lines. You wait until the tank commander opens the hatch and then drop him with your hunting rifle from 300 yards away. It's the same tactic used all over the world, a basic war of attrition against an enemy that has notionally superior firepower but is fighting an asymmetric battle.

It's interesting the way you commented on the 2nd amendment defending the first. It could also work the other way around - if the first amendment falls the second may not be far behind. Already the mainstream media plays up any incidents involving a gun while playing down any incidents involving a law-abiding gun owner preventing or stopping a crime and any incidents involving weapons other than guns.

Even looking at the horrific recent attacks, the response is totally disproportionate. If the focus is on saving lives we should be banning automobiles rather than vaguely defined "assault rifles". If someone goes on a stabbing spree we don't hear about "assault knives", the gangland violence in which young black men kill each other with depressing regularity barely gets a mention (yet if white men killed a fraction of the number of black men the howling about racist violence would almost certainly be deafening) and so on.

Sadly it seems those on the left would rather sensationalise the things that suit their agenda and ignore everything else.

Incidentally the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the right to bear arms, it acknowledges the right and says it shall not be infringed.

 

[tango]

Yup. At least that's what my Early American History class prof taught..... The American Revolution was POSSIBLE only because every American male over the age of 10 had a gun - and could use it (well). The first thing any dictator does is try to eliminate guns in the hands of the people. You'd think this would be in vain in this modern world, but consider the Cuban revolution or the Hungry Rebellion, even now... The Second Amendment was not about hunting or self - defense or sport (although those were the uses for all those guns, once a UNIVERSAL American possession), the reason was a "check" on government, part of the whole "checks and balances" mentality of our founding, part of the whole "Government is something to fear" mentality that is quite a (unique) aspect of our nation.



.

If I recall one of the Japanese commanders during WWII had talked of launching a full scale invasion of the US but decided against it based on the firepower they would be facing as just about every citizen stood their ground to repel the invaders.

In this day and age the chances are that any attempt to repel an invading army would be decried as racist.

 

[tango]

The second amendment gives the right to have a well regulated militia which can keep and bear arms. It does not say a well armed individual has the right to bear arms.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment gives the States the right to have an armory in which the regulated militia of individual citizens (brought together to fight) will acquire the weapons to defend the homeland.
The key is well regulated militia.
Unfortunately, the first phrase is ignored and thus interpreted that unregulated individuals have the right to freely acquire weapons. Such an interpretation has allowed citizens to stockpile weapons for their own kingdom rather than to defend the homeland. It actually goes against the intent of the founders.

I'm not sure the second amendment can be seen to be giving any rights, merely respecting rights that already exist. It says "the right... shall not be infringed" rather than "in order to achieve this, the people are allowed to do that".

If "the people" collectively are allowed to keep and bear arms that means that individuals must be allowed to keep and bear arms. Because, you know, "the people" in the plural are made up of individual people. You could conceivably argue that the intent was to have lots of small local militia groups that each kept their own stash of weapons rather than individuals having and specific claim to specific arms but that would make little sense if trying to defend against a tyrannical government. If all the guns are stored in one location all the tyrant needs to do is round people up before they can get to the guns and immediately gain an advantage. To argue that the militia is regulated at state level and there is a single weapons cache managed by the state really makes no sense at all - much has been said about the problems caused to the viability of defending your own home if you are required to lock a firearm and ammunition in separate boxes so it's inconceivable that gathering the militia means trying to get them all to the state capital before they can do anything useful to defend themselves.

If the people they want to round up are armed in their own homes, with their own weapons, the government has to consider that its agents may face firepower equal or superior to anything they can muster. That alone gives cause to stop and think about the mission, if you're the one being sent into the field by a tyrant.

Your last paragraph makes little sense - if "the homeland" is essentially a conglomeration of the "kingdoms" of individual owners of firearms then defending one is, by definition, defending the other. If I'm defending my own little patch of land, I'm defending a part of "the homeland", whether "the homeland" is taken to mean the country, the state, the town, or just my own home.

Interestingly the second amendment doesn't seem to say much about who should regulate the militia. If the purpose was to make sure that a government didn't become overbearing then it's hard to see how regulation by any level of government would make any sense, which rather begs the question of who or what should do the regulating. It might be argued that it should be regulated at state level against an overbearing federal government but, if the purpose is to prevent a government from overreaching the authority granted to it, it leaves the people open to abuse by a tyrannical government at state or lower level.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm not sure the second amendment can be seen to be giving any rights, merely respecting rights that already exist. It says "the right... shall not be infringed" rather than "in order to achieve this, the people are allowed to do that".

If "the people" collectively are allowed to keep and bear arms that means that individuals must be allowed to keep and bear arms. Because, you know, "the people" in the plural are made up of individual people. You could conceivably argue that the intent was to have lots of small local militia groups that each kept their own stash of weapons rather than individuals having and specific claim to specific arms but that would make little sense if trying to defend against a tyrannical government. If all the guns are stored in one location all the tyrant needs to do is round people up before they can get to the guns and immediately gain an advantage. To argue that the militia is regulated at state level and there is a single weapons cache managed by the state really makes no sense at all - much has been said about the problems caused to the viability of defending your own home if you are required to lock a firearm and ammunition in separate boxes so it's inconceivable that gathering the militia means trying to get them all to the state capital before they can do anything useful to defend themselves.

If the people they want to round up are armed in their own homes, with their own weapons, the government has to consider that its agents may face firepower equal or superior to anything they can muster. That alone gives cause to stop and think about the mission, if you're the one being sent into the field by a tyrant.

Your last paragraph makes little sense - if "the homeland" is essentially a conglomeration of the "kingdoms" of individual owners of firearms then defending one is, by definition, defending the other. If I'm defending my own little patch of land, I'm defending a part of "the homeland", whether "the homeland" is taken to mean the country, the state, the town, or just my own home.

Interestingly the second amendment doesn't seem to say much about who should regulate the militia. If the purpose was to make sure that a government didn't become overbearing then it's hard to see how regulation by any level of government would make any sense, which rather begs the question of who or what should do the regulating. It might be argued that it should be regulated at state level against an overbearing federal government but, if the purpose is to prevent a government from overreaching the authority granted to it, it leaves the people open to abuse by a tyrannical government at state or lower level.

The people will never have firepower equal to or better than the US military. It is a foolish notion that can only result in total annihilation of those bent on resistance.
Better to entrust your life to the one who holds the keys over life and death. Then love your enemy even if you lose your life in the process.

 

[tango]

The people will never have firepower equal to or better than the US military. It is a foolish notion that can only result in total annihilation of those bent on resistance.
Better to entrust your life to the one who holds the keys over life and death. Then love your enemy even if you lose your life in the process.

The second amendment isn't really about whether we trust in God or not, it's about the concept that we should be in a place to restrain government overreach if we choose to do so. The discussion here isn't about whether we should entrust our lives to God and, to be honest, even that is the kind of argument that is often used where the speaker finds it suits their theology and not elsewhere. It's curious how people insist we shouldn't carry firearms because we should trust God to protect us, even when they lock their doors at night rather than trust God to protect them and go to work rather than trusting God to provide for them. The discussion about whether or not to exercise a particular right is very different to the discussion of whether or not the right should exist at all. But that aside, back to the topic of firearms....

Even having vastly superior firepower doesn't guarantee a quick victory, nor indeed does it offer an absolute guarantee of victory at all. Just look at the times over the years that various armies have tried to take or even control an area like Afghanistan. Look at the Arab-Israeli wars and how the Israeli army, vastly outnumbered and sometimes fighting on multiple fronts, still repelled the Arab armies.

The other issue is that even the threat of total annihilation means little to people who are happy to become martyrs to their cause. I don't know how many pro-2A people would actually be willing to lay down their lives (other than that it's probably safe to say the number who would actually do it is far fewer than the number who say they would do it), but the ones who are willing to die are typically far more dangerous than the ones who are not. This is demonstrated pretty well by how much harder it is to detect and stop a suicide attacker than to stop a comparable attacker who isn't looking to die in the course of their attack.

 

[psalms 91]

Amazing how a discussion of limiting a certain type of weapon in order to decrese the amount of people killed in an incident evolves into disarming the population. As for firepower I want to see the man or woman that can stand against a machine gun, hand grenade, bomb, with an assault rifle and I want to see who can hide when they possess ground penetrating radar helicopters and so many other things to help them find who or what they are looking for

 

[Bluezone777]

Victory isn't always about overpowering your enemy as it can be about stripping your opponent of their will to continue. If they have no will to continue, you can defeat them even if they in theory should have been able to overpower you. History is full of examples of people using this to win wars they should have otherwise not have won.

The assault weapons ban of 94-04 was tested and shown to have had no effect on crime during the time it was in effect. In fact, the Columbine shooters used weapons that were listed as banned by this law in their attack while the ban was in effect yet it did not hinder nor stop them from acquiring and using those weapons.

The only thing a gun ban of any kind will do is create a lucrative criminal enterprise and in fact make the problem worse not better.

 

[tango]

Amazing how a discussion of limiting a certain type of weapon in order to decrese the amount of people killed in an incident evolves into disarming the population. As for firepower I want to see the man or woman that can stand against a machine gun, hand grenade, bomb, with an assault rifle and I want to see who can hide when they possess ground penetrating radar helicopters and so many other things to help them find who or what they are looking for

Firstly, banning particular weapon types won't do much to decrease the number of people killed. It's clear there's an agenda that is little to do with public safety. AR-15 style rifles are used in such a small percentage of homicides that there's little point focusing so much energy on banning them. Trying to ban "high capacity magazines", which is often little more than leftist speak for standard capacity magazines, is similarly pointless given how fast even a slightly trained gun owner can reload a handgun. And endlessly going after the people who didn't commit a crime and have no intention of committing a crime isn't generally regarded as an effective way to reduce crime.

Apparently statistics from Florida suggest that people with a license to carry firearms are something like six times less likely to commit a crime as police officers. Going after lawful gun owners really isn't going to help here - it really is comparable to trying to rein in drunk drivers by taking cars away from people who have never driven under the influence.

The technology available to helicopters is all well and good but unless the government is willing to inflict huge collateral damage on innocent civilians it doesn't help much. Thermal imaging can show that a human is in the woods. It can't tell whether the human is someone minding their own business taking a walk in the woods, or a member of a militia group with a recently banned AR-15 and every intention of firing on the helicopter. The military would have the exact same problem it has faced in conflict zones around the world - when militia groups use places like schools and hospitals and churches as cover the military has to either fight with its hands tied or cause enormous and politically unacceptable collateral damage.

If you want to see what it looks like, look at just about any recent conflict in the Middle East.

 

[tango]

Victory isn't always about overpowering your enemy as it can be about stripping your opponent of their will to continue. If they have no will to continue, you can defeat them even if they in theory should have been able to overpower you. History is full of examples of people using this to win wars they should have otherwise not have won.

The assault weapons ban of 94-04 was tested and shown to have had no effect on crime during the time it was in effect. In fact, the Columbine shooters used weapons that were listed as banned by this law in their attack while the ban was in effect yet it did not hinder nor stop them from acquiring and using those weapons.

The only thing a gun ban of any kind will do is create a lucrative criminal enterprise and in fact make the problem worse not better.

"To win without fighting is the highest excellence" - Sun Tzu

The Columbine shooters also used pipe bombs. Last time I checked you can't get those from Walmart. As has been said before, you'd almost be forgiven for thinking criminals don't obey the law.