GOP likely to let Assault Weapons Ban expire (article plus commentary) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 03-19-2004, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Do you believe that any american citizen should be able to freely own as many guns as they want, with no restrictions on the size, capacity, or capabilities of the gun?

Ideally, yes. However, I understand the realistic need of such things as background checks, safety training, and restricting weapons from criminals and the mentally ill. These sort of restrictions should be the responsibility of the states, however, not the federal government.

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Would you extend this allowance to non-gun weapons, like grenades and mortars?

If someone -- say, a collector -- were to be properly trained in the safe use and storage of said weapons, more power to them.

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
What gun laws would you enact if you could start with a clean slate?

I'm a fan of requiring or recommending that someone take a firearm safety course before purchasing a firearm of any sort -- "assault weapon" or 22 cal revolver -- which would ideally involve proper use and storage of said firearm along with confrontation-avoidance techniques. However, national gun registration, arbitrary gun bans, and waiting periods are completely useless and should be avoided at all costs as they are costly, ineffective, and illogical.

HarmlessRabbit · 03-19-2004, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I'm a fan of requiring or recommending that someone take a firearm safety course before purchasing a firearm of any sort -- "assault weapon" or 22 cal revolver -- which would ideally involve proper use and storage of said firearm along with confrontation-avoidance techniques. However, national gun registration, arbitrary gun bans, and waiting periods are completely useless and should be avoided at all costs as they are costly, ineffective, and illogical.

Thanks! It sounds like our opinions are very close together.

timalkin · 03-22-2004, 06:42 PM

That piece from the million mommies is just hilariously emotional. If "assault weapons" encourage people to shoot from the hip, maybe we should encourage their production and distribution, because you won't be hitting anything by firing from that position.

Anyway, I think there should be very few, if any, gun control laws on the books.

Ex-cons should be able to possess weapons just like everyone else. If they're too dangerous to trust, keep them in jail.

Citizens should own machine guns if they want and can afford them. Howitzers, mortars, whatever, as long as you can afford them.

I'd show someone the Wrath of God if these weapons were misused in any way, however.

If mentally ill people are too dangerous, put them away.

Citizens should be trusted until they've done something wrong. Don't punish me because of what someone else has done.

Lebell · 03-24-2004, 12:25 PM

I have a few minutes so I thought I would catch up some....

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
OK, well, I wasn't arguing that criminals choose one weapon over another, just that it's silly to me to argue that there is no functional difference between a folded stock and an unfolded one--they have two different purposes, with the former being ease of concealment.

But I can believe that legislature members did pass a law based on fear or looks or what they might have thought represented the most dangerous weapons. I started my point with speculation. So if you say you've got the quotes and all, I'm not too bent to gainsay you.

The stats in relation to crime rates though, since that's what I stare at all day, I'd like you to PM me someday. I'll walk through them with you and we can discuss what's going on.Keep in mind of course, that they are starting to rise again.

Well, if we are being correct, folding/collapsing stocks were designed orginally to allow easier storage and so that the weapons were easier to handle in confined spaces.

I will agree that they possibly could make them easier to conceal (depending on the specific gun), but I've not seen any statistics or other data that says criminals select them for that reason.

Lebell · 03-24-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I fully understood your point. I agree that the current AWB law isn't effective. However, that law exists in a political context in which:
- the NRA will oppose any gun control law, no matter how sensible, because they claim that it is a "camel nose under the tent" for harsher gun control later
- the gun control supporters will support any gun control law, no matter how silly, so that they can go back to their constituents and say what a good job they did

So, I expect a clean, effective gun control law to be passed, oh, about never.

Lebell, I laid out my opinion on how I thought guns should be controlled, and you came back with the same argument saying that there is no proof that any gun control is effective. As I said at the beginning of this thread, nuclear weapons aren't freely available to own, therefore it seems like some form of weapon control is needed in the USA.

Are you honestly saying that you believe that any american citizen should be able to freely own as many guns as they want, with no restrictions on the size, capacity, or capabilities of the gun? And that they should be able to get these guns with absolutely no restrictions, training, background checks, or any other controls?

Unless you believe this, then you obviously believe in some form of gun control laws. What gun controls laws would you enact if you could start with a clean slate?

Well,

I have to disagree that the NRA opposes reasonable laws.

For example, they support selling safety locks with guns.

But to answer your main question, I would support

-criminal background checks
-banning criminals with violent convictions from owning guns
-manditory safety locks sold with guns
-POSSIBLY a mandatory safety course before a gun could be purchased.
-increased penalties for straw purchases, dealers not following the rules, gun crimes, etc.
-keeping fully automatic weapons, explosives and other "distructive devices" under the 1934 act

What I don't support:

-waiting periods
-limits on the amount of gun purchases
-outlawing any guns on cosmetic features
-outlawing .50 caliber rifles

Lebell · 03-24-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Look, I don't want to keep arguing this point as I don't see my opinion chaning anyone's mind. But I'm going to point a couple things out before I take off:

1) Evidence that criminals don't use assault weapons during crimes isn't evidence that the ban is useless, it's evidence that it works. These weapons have been banned from being manufactured for 10 years now. The pre-94 weapons have substantially increased in price. Any of you collectors out there are more than welcome to buy pre-banned rifles at a collector's price--but companies can't make new ones.

2) Your ability to make a legal gun look like an illegal one notwithstanding, law enforcement officials won't know whether they are looking down the barrel of a fully automatic AR15 or not. Why you failed to mention in your example above that there is a fully auto version of the AR15 is beyond me. A semi-auto version can be converted to a full auto by exchaning some parts and shaving metal from the internals. Granted the mini-14 can be converted, as well, but, well...that leads into this next point:

--http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp

Now granted, I think shooting semi's off are fun. But as soon as I could, I "fixed" my tech-9 and sks's. We might reach a consensus on where the line between regulating guns should be, but you aren't going to convince me that there is no functional difference between a fold-down polycarbonate stock, pistol grip rifle with a 50 round clip and a wooden stock, full lenght, ruger hunting rifle with a 3 round clip.

I agree that we aren't going to convince each other and that we are repeating ourselves, but there are a few points that I still need to make regarding what you've said.

On your point 1), it is exactly evidence that criminals don't use assault weapons, because the the same assault weapons have continued to be available while crime went down.

In otherwords, you can go to the store today and get an AR15 (with the proper background checks, of course).

On point 2):

I don't believe it matters to a cop if the gun is fully auto or not (I've never seen this argument before). If you are pointing a gun at a cop, he/she will shoot you, period.

Also, I don't know exactly why we are off into fully automatic conversions, as the AWB has NOTHING to do with fully automatic weapons, but I'll answer your point.

Putting [b]any[b] fully automatic weapon parts in a gun makes it a "machine gun" to the ATF (whether or not it actually functions as such doesn't even matter). If you get caught, it's a vacation at Club Fed.

And it isn't that easy to do either. (Certainly not just "shaving metal from the internals").

Several parts are incompatable and require a machine shop to change.

Definitely beyond the average person's ability.

So again, in the face of "what if" arguments, I simply point to the fact that there is no evidence to support your claims.

HarmlessRabbit · 03-24-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
But to answer your main question, I would support

-criminal background checks
-banning criminals with violent convictions from owning guns
-manditory safety locks sold with guns
-POSSIBLY a mandatory safety course before a gun could be purchased.
-increased penalties for straw purchases, dealers not following the rules, gun crimes, etc.
-keeping fully automatic weapons, explosives and other "distructive devices" under the 1934 act

What I don't support:

-waiting periods
-limits on the amount of gun purchases
-outlawing any guns on cosmetic features
-outlawing .50 caliber rifles

I pretty much agree with your standards, except that I think waiting periods for "saturday night specials" are useful. However, "increased penalties for dealers not following the rules" might work in place of waiting periods.

I also think reasonable limits on number of guns owned might be useful, with an exception for antiques.

Which brings me back to one of my original points. The NRA rhetoric about being being "for" gun control or "against" gun control really just polarizes the conversations. You are for gun control, and I am for gun control, we just happen to have slightly different opinions on what the rules should be.

The NRA likes to argue that they are the pure keeper of the 2nd amendment, but the fact is that they don't want completely unregulated gun ownership, nor do you. So for all the posturing of the NRA, they violate "shall not be infringed" too.

I understand why the NRA gets so worked up. The posturing just irks me, that's all.

Oh hey, Wayne LaPierre was on the commonwealth club last week, it was an excellent program. You can hear it here:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/arch...rre-audio.html

He did a great job with what must have been a pretty hostile audience. (The commonwealth club is a bunch of san francisco intellectuals.)

hrdwareguy · 03-25-2004, 10:20 AM

While I generally agree with Lebell on gun controll issues I wanted to make a couple of points.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
[B]Putting any[\b] fully automatic weapon parts in a gun makes it a "machine gun" to the ATF (whether or not it actually functions as such doesn't even matter). If you get caught, it's a vacation at Club Fed.

And it isn't that easy to do either. (Certainly not just "shaving metal from the internals").

Several parts are incompatable and require a machine shop to change.

Definitely beyond the average person's ability.

With an AR15/M16 conversion this is very easy to do. The machine work for the auto seer is the only machining that needs to be done. Add the auto seer, a bolt carier with the long brace. Replace the fire control selector switch, the hammer, and the disconnect and you are done. Aside from the machining, a simple process. Obtaining the parts may be a little difficult but if someone really wants to, they will.

For all the people worried about fully automatic weapons (silencers are also included in this) and the general population having them, as already stated, these are highly regulated by the 1934 Firearms Act. In order to purchase an NFA item, first you must find an NFA dealer. (Yes there are certain things you must due if you want to even sell this stuff). After you find a dealer, and you find the item you wish to purchase at an incredibly high price (silencers can easily run into the $800 range), the dealer fills out a form and gives to you, you get that signed by your local law enforcement, send it to the ATF with fingerprints, a picture and $200. The ATF takes it time (usually 4 to 6 months) to process your application. If approved it goes back to the store owner who calls you to come get your item. You now go pay for your item and the store owner gives you a letter from the ATF with your picture and finger prints on it, and a tax stamp for the item purchased. Your picture is part of the letter. You MUST keep the letter and the stamp with the NFA item purchased at all times. You have also given the ATF permission to come into your home and check for these items whenever they want. So it's not as easy to get these items leagilly as many of you may think.

Now to the topic of the thread so I am not accused of threadjacking. I am glad the AWB will sunset. It was a symbol and a bunch of lip service to the anti gun populace. Gun control should be based on the individual, not the gun.

Lebell · 03-25-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hrdwareguy
While I generally agree with Lebell on gun controll issues I wanted to make a couple of points.

With an AR15/M16 conversion this is very easy to do. The machine work for the auto seer is the only machining that needs to be done. Add the auto seer, a bolt carier with the long brace. Replace the fire control selector switch, the hammer, and the disconnect and you are done. Aside from the machining, a simple process. Obtaining the parts may be a little difficult but if someone really wants to, they will.

For all the people worried about fully automatic weapons (silencers are also included in this) and the general population having them, as already stated, these are highly regulated by the 1934 Firearms Act. In order to purchase an NFA item, first you must find an NFA dealer. (Yes there are certain things you must due if you want to even sell this stuff). After you find a dealer, and you find the item you wish to purchase at an incredibly high price (silencers can easily run into the $800 range), the dealer fills out a form and gives to you, you get that signed by your local law enforcement, send it to the ATF with fingerprints, a picture and $200. The ATF takes it time (usually 4 to 6 months) to process your application. If approved it goes back to the store owner who calls you to come get your item. You now go pay for your item and the store owner gives you a letter from the ATF with your picture and finger prints on it, and a tax stamp for the item purchased. Your picture is part of the letter. You MUST keep the letter and the stamp with the NFA item purchased at all times. You have also given the ATF permission to come into your home and check for these items whenever they want. So it's not as easy to get these items leagilly as many of you may think.

Now to the topic of the thread so I am not accused of threadjacking. I am glad the AWB will sunset. It was a symbol and a bunch of lip service to the anti gun populace. Gun control should be based on the individual, not the gun.

I won't pretend to know about all AR15's, but for the Bushmaster, there are several incompatible parts and I believe the reciever needs to be machined to recieve M16 parts as well.

Since the new parts are controlled as a "machine gun", you have to buy them through a class3 dealer.

(Not any big disagreement here, just some info exchange.)

03-22-2004, 06:42 PM	#43 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	That piece from the million mommies is just hilariously emotional. If "assault weapons" encourage people to shoot from the hip, maybe we should encourage their production and distribution, because you won't be hitting anything by firing from that position. Anyway, I think there should be very few, if any, gun control laws on the books. Ex-cons should be able to possess weapons just like everyone else. If they're too dangerous to trust, keep them in jail. Citizens should own machine guns if they want and can afford them. Howitzers, mortars, whatever, as long as you can afford them. I'd show someone the Wrath of God if these weapons were misused in any way, however. If mentally ill people are too dangerous, put them away. Citizens should be trusted until they've done something wrong. Don't punish me because of what someone else has done. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 03-22-2004 at 06:44 PM..